10 ms·

Some example comments in this thread: >"People should move their youbube-dl repositories to servers hosted in Switzerland, " >"Time for a decentralized versio

by jasode 6y ago

Some example comments in this thread: >"People should move their youbube-dl repositories to servers hosted in Switzerland, " >"Time for a decentralized version control system?" >"The nice thing about fossil" ... those well-meaning suggestions are missing the true difficulty: The community wants a (1) Schelling Point[0] for workflow/issues/discussions/PRs that's also (2) censorship resistant. So far, (1) and (2) contradict each other's goals. Nobody has come up with a technology solution that satisfies both goals. Yes, Fossil has has discussions built into the repo, but fossil is not a Schelling Point. Yes, one can run Gitlab on a self-hosted Raspberry Pi from a home internet connection but that's also not a stable Schelling Point because ISP like Comcast can shut that IP down for DMCA violation.[1] And SMTP mailing lists also ultimately depend on a server that holds the discussion archive and a well-known address for new users to send a "add my email" request. Thus, the existence of a well-known server becomes a specific target for RIAA/DMCA takedown. As for other "uncensorable" technology ideas such as IPFS, Freenet, blockchain, etc. I haven't seen any proof-of-concept from other projects that demonstrates similar easy-to-use collaboration of Github. Remember, it's not about the raw git repo... it's about the Focal Point for the collaboration workflow. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) [1] https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/comcast-dmca-compliance-policy https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/comcast-dmca-compli...

feanaro 6y ago
The hosting for the server is irrelevant if it is relatively stable (does not get compromised every few days) and you have alternatives to move to if it gets taken down. The true single point of failure is the domain name, but sites like sci-hub seem to be able to manage that rather easily too. The domain name sometimes has to change but people still seem to be able to find it easily.
swiley 6y ago
You could always use a newsgroup for patches/issues/discussion. Those are notoriously hard to sensor and usually can be posted to/read by normal mail clients.
- ghaff 6y ago
  The cynical might note that somehow software development happened before modern version control systems, much less GitHub, even existed.
  - dtech 6y ago
    Not as public open source in such a wide scale and availability as today
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      Linux has been on Github for 9 years. Linux has been for 29 years.
      - the_fury 6y ago
        "in such a wide scale and availability as today"
        dredmorbius 6y ago
        Based on what trend data or measures?
      - swiley 6y ago
        I think it's a good idea to point out that github only mirrors Linux. The development happens over email.
saurik 6y ago
How about a copy of GitLab hosted as a Tor hidden service? (The core problem there being that someone has to be willing to host it, of course, as this isn't truly a decentralized approach to the problem, and so maybe one day gets outed and something seriously bad happens to them... but, practically?)
arghwhat 6y ago
> And SMTP mailing lists also ultimately depend on a server that holds the discussion archive and a well-known address for new users to send a "add my email" request. This is not entirely correct. The fault lies in the assumed importance of the list. When I send a kernel patch, I send it to the maintainer, then CC anyone I myself think should be involved, and finally CC the relevant lists (plural). The list acts as feed for lurkers, and as an archive. The mailing list server being down will not affect this workflow in the slightest. It's a minor inconvenience at best, and mostly to those that were not part of the development flow and just wanted to lurk.
- jasode 6y ago
  >The fault lies in the assumed importance of the list. The "importance" of the mailing list I'm trying to emphasize is the Schelling Point. This is the social discovery aspect you're not addressing. Let's dissect your following example: >When I send a kernel patch, I send it to the maintainer, then CC anyone I myself think should be involved, and finally CC the relevant lists (plural). The list acts as feed for lurkers, and as an archive. The list also acts as a Schelling Point to coordinate and consolidate public discussions. And consider the seemingly trivial action of "I send it to the maintainer". We have to unpack some hidden steps in that. How does a new contributor -- or a new non-contributing non-programmer enduser who just wants to file a bug request -- get a list of maintainers' email addresses ex nihilo[1]? A mailing list also has a Schelling Point aspect where people can discover email addresses of maintainers. Right now, the yt-dl.org About[2] webpage is broken and therefore doesn't show the maintainers. I don't know the email address of the current youtube-dl maintainer and Google search results[3] don't quickly reveal it. - "github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl" acted as a Schelling Point - "yt-dl.org" also acted as Schelling Point How would new people easily discover the maintainers' email addresses without any Schelling Points? >It's a minor inconvenience at best, and mostly to those that were not part of the development flow I disagree. Today, if I notice a bug where youtube-dl is broken, I don't have a canonical place to report the issue. Somebody said the official maintainer moved the repo to Gitlab -- but when I search Google for "youtube-dl gitlab" and click the top link[4], the repo owner says "I'll wait to see what happens with the GitHub repository and the current maintainer before I do anything with this clone." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo [2] https://yt-dl.org/about.html https://yt-dl.org/about.html [3] https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube-dl+maintainer+email+address https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube-dl+maintainer+email+... [4] https://gitlab.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl https://gitlab.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl
Chris2048 6y ago
Why can't you have a Schelling Point hosted in .nl/Switzerland? Is domain blocking the issue?
AlexandrB 6y ago
> >"Time for a decentralized version control system?" I have to laugh at this one. Git is a decentralized VCS, that was effectively re-centralized (via Github) for the sake of convenience.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  I’ve heard this over and over, but I never understood it. How is Git supposed to be decentralized when you push and pull from one place? Would you just set up multiple “origins” with each one pointing to a head maintainer’s computer (and named appropriately)? Because that sounds like a massive pain compared to a centralized system like GitHub. Of course, there is the benefit of a VCS built on the idea of decentralization: not having to be online to make commits (cough SVN cough). But, in theory, could a centralized system work in “offline mode” like Git?
  - marcrosoft 6y ago
    People push and pull from one place by convention but it was designed to pull from anywhere. The problem is PRs, issues, code review etc has become centralized. As far as the code goes they just need to host all code at their own domain and use GitHub and other services as a mirror.
  - sidpatil 6y ago
    > Would you just set up multiple “origins” with each one pointing to a head maintainer’s computer (and named appropriately)? That's one way of doing it. There are others as well. https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Distributed-Git-Distributed-Workflows https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Distributed-Git-Distributed-W...
  - jononor 6y ago
    "Fully offline capable" would be a better term than "decentralized" when describing git. But, one relatively decentralized workflow that git has good support for is sending patches via email (git format-patch, git am). I believe the Linux kernel still does a large amount of its collaboration that way.
TrueDuality 6y ago
I'd be curious if Mastodon could be extended to support this. It's not entirely censorship resistant but it at least diffuses the ownership and control.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
heavyset_go 6y ago
> Yes, one can run Gitlab on a self-hosted Raspberry Pi from a home internet connection but that's also not a stable Schelling Point because ISP like Comcast can shut that IP down for DMCA violation Agreed, however this is where something like a Tor hidden service can help out, assuming something as innocuous as YTDL doesn't draw the ire of three letter agencies, which is very possible given that the FBI investigates copyright infringement.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
muststopmyths 6y ago
>"Time for a decentralized version control system?" A GitTorrent, if you will.
- ric2b 6y ago
  That's just git on IPFS.
BlueTemplar 6y ago
Github isn't Facebook, there's hardly any network effect involved (the actual network is the World Wide Web itself). The main issue is all the information that is Github-exclusive (like the "issues"), which AFAIK is extremely valuable for youtube-dl, and also AFAIK cannot be (easily) exported. But then developers should have know better than to put all their eggs in someone else's (Microsoft's !!) centralized and locked basket. If Pirate fricking Bay is still up after all these years, so can be youtube-dl repository/ies. EDIT : probably an even better example : Popcorn Time
ignoranceprior 6y ago
A Schelling point is a solution that people converge on without communication. But since youtube-dl already has a lead maintainer, a website, and plenty of other ways of coordinating on a solution, I don't see how the concept of "Schelling point" is relevant.
- jasode 6y ago
  >But since youtube-dl already has a [...] I don't see how the concept of "Schelling point" is relevant. There are multiple Schelling Points. The specific Schelling Point that's uncertain is a widely known place that everybody has converged on for bug reports, discussing issues, pull requests, etc. The Github repo used to serve that purpose but DMCA took it down. Yes, the domain "youtube-dl.org" is _one_ Schelling Point, but there was another Schelling Point for developers' collaboration and Github removed it. Someone said the maintainer moved the repo to Gitlab but the one found by Google search doesn't seem canonical/blessed/official. Even if it is canonical, Gitlab could also remove it because of a DMCA takedown. There doesn't seem to be a slam dunk obvious (and easy) solution for creating stable Schelling Points for developers to collaborate on legally dubious projects like Youtube-dl that's the target of RIAA.
parliament32 6y ago
Git will happily push/pull to/from repos on your peers' computers, and you could just, you know, email a list of people instead of depending on a central mailing list for discussion. It'll suck to onboard new people but it's entirely possible to have a Git project + discussion without a single central point of failure.

by jasode 6y ago

feanaro 6y ago

The hosting for the server is irrelevant if it is relatively stable (does not get compromised every few days) and you have alternatives to move to if it gets taken down. The true single point of failure is the domain name, but sites like sci-hub seem to be able to manage that rather easily too. The domain name sometimes has to change but people still seem to be able to find it easily.

swiley 6y ago

You could always use a newsgroup for patches/issues/discussion. Those are notoriously hard to sensor and usually can be posted to/read by normal mail clients.

ghaff 6y ago
The cynical might note that somehow software development happened before modern version control systems, much less GitHub, even existed.
- dtech 6y ago
  Not as public open source in such a wide scale and availability as today
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Linux has been on Github for 9 years. Linux has been for 29 years.
    - the_fury 6y ago
      "in such a wide scale and availability as today"
      - dredmorbius 6y ago
        Based on what trend data or measures?
    - swiley 6y ago
      I think it's a good idea to point out that github only mirrors Linux. The development happens over email.

saurik 6y ago

How about a copy of GitLab hosted as a Tor hidden service? (The core problem there being that someone has to be willing to host it, of course, as this isn't truly a decentralized approach to the problem, and so maybe one day gets outed and something seriously bad happens to them... but, practically?)

arghwhat 6y ago

> And SMTP mailing lists also ultimately depend on a server that holds the discussion archive and a well-known address for new users to send a "add my email" request. This is not entirely correct. The fault lies in the assumed importance of the list. When I send a kernel patch, I send it to the maintainer, then CC anyone I myself think should be involved, and finally CC the relevant lists (plural). The list acts as feed for lurkers, and as an archive. The mailing list server being down will not affect this workflow in the slightest. It's a minor inconvenience at best, and mostly to those that were not part of the development flow and just wanted to lurk.

jasode 6y ago
>The fault lies in the assumed importance of the list. The "importance" of the mailing list I'm trying to emphasize is the Schelling Point. This is the social discovery aspect you're not addressing. Let's dissect your following example: >When I send a kernel patch, I send it to the maintainer, then CC anyone I myself think should be involved, and finally CC the relevant lists (plural). The list acts as feed for lurkers, and as an archive. The list also acts as a Schelling Point to coordinate and consolidate public discussions. And consider the seemingly trivial action of "I send it to the maintainer". We have to unpack some hidden steps in that. How does a new contributor -- or a new non-contributing non-programmer enduser who just wants to file a bug request -- get a list of maintainers' email addresses ex nihilo[1]? A mailing list also has a Schelling Point aspect where people can discover email addresses of maintainers. Right now, the yt-dl.org About[2] webpage is broken and therefore doesn't show the maintainers. I don't know the email address of the current youtube-dl maintainer and Google search results[3] don't quickly reveal it. - "github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl" acted as a Schelling Point - "yt-dl.org" also acted as Schelling Point How would new people easily discover the maintainers' email addresses without any Schelling Points? >It's a minor inconvenience at best, and mostly to those that were not part of the development flow I disagree. Today, if I notice a bug where youtube-dl is broken, I don't have a canonical place to report the issue. Somebody said the official maintainer moved the repo to Gitlab -- but when I search Google for "youtube-dl gitlab" and click the top link[4], the repo owner says "I'll wait to see what happens with the GitHub repository and the current maintainer before I do anything with this clone." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo [2] https://yt-dl.org/about.html https://yt-dl.org/about.html [3] https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube-dl+maintainer+email+address https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube-dl+maintainer+email+... [4] https://gitlab.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl https://gitlab.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl

Chris2048 6y ago

Why can't you have a Schelling Point hosted in .nl/Switzerland? Is domain blocking the issue?

AlexandrB 6y ago

> >"Time for a decentralized version control system?" I have to laugh at this one. Git is a decentralized VCS, that was effectively re-centralized (via Github) for the sake of convenience.

colejohnson66 6y ago
I’ve heard this over and over, but I never understood it. How is Git supposed to be decentralized when you push and pull from one place? Would you just set up multiple “origins” with each one pointing to a head maintainer’s computer (and named appropriately)? Because that sounds like a massive pain compared to a centralized system like GitHub. Of course, there is the benefit of a VCS built on the idea of decentralization: not having to be online to make commits (cough SVN cough). But, in theory, could a centralized system work in “offline mode” like Git?
- marcrosoft 6y ago
  People push and pull from one place by convention but it was designed to pull from anywhere. The problem is PRs, issues, code review etc has become centralized. As far as the code goes they just need to host all code at their own domain and use GitHub and other services as a mirror.
- sidpatil 6y ago
  > Would you just set up multiple “origins” with each one pointing to a head maintainer’s computer (and named appropriately)? That's one way of doing it. There are others as well. https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Distributed-Git-Distributed-Workflows https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Distributed-Git-Distributed-W...
- jononor 6y ago
  "Fully offline capable" would be a better term than "decentralized" when describing git. But, one relatively decentralized workflow that git has good support for is sending patches via email (git format-patch, git am). I believe the Linux kernel still does a large amount of its collaboration that way.

TrueDuality 6y ago

I'd be curious if Mastodon could be extended to support this. It's not entirely censorship resistant but it at least diffuses the ownership and control.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

heavyset_go 6y ago

> Yes, one can run Gitlab on a self-hosted Raspberry Pi from a home internet connection but that's also not a stable Schelling Point because ISP like Comcast can shut that IP down for DMCA violation Agreed, however this is where something like a Tor hidden service can help out, assuming something as innocuous as YTDL doesn't draw the ire of three letter agencies, which is very possible given that the FBI investigates copyright infringement.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

muststopmyths 6y ago

>"Time for a decentralized version control system?" A GitTorrent, if you will.

ric2b 6y ago
That's just git on IPFS.

BlueTemplar 6y ago

Github isn't Facebook, there's hardly any network effect involved (the actual network is the World Wide Web itself). The main issue is all the information that is Github-exclusive (like the "issues"), which AFAIK is extremely valuable for youtube-dl, and also AFAIK cannot be (easily) exported. But then developers should have know better than to put all their eggs in someone else's (Microsoft's !!) centralized and locked basket. If Pirate fricking Bay is still up after all these years, so can be youtube-dl repository/ies. EDIT : probably an even better example : Popcorn Time

ignoranceprior 6y ago

A Schelling point is a solution that people converge on without communication. But since youtube-dl already has a lead maintainer, a website, and plenty of other ways of coordinating on a solution, I don't see how the concept of "Schelling point" is relevant.

jasode 6y ago
>But since youtube-dl already has a [...] I don't see how the concept of "Schelling point" is relevant. There are multiple Schelling Points. The specific Schelling Point that's uncertain is a widely known place that everybody has converged on for bug reports, discussing issues, pull requests, etc. The Github repo used to serve that purpose but DMCA took it down. Yes, the domain "youtube-dl.org" is _one_ Schelling Point, but there was another Schelling Point for developers' collaboration and Github removed it. Someone said the maintainer moved the repo to Gitlab but the one found by Google search doesn't seem canonical/blessed/official. Even if it is canonical, Gitlab could also remove it because of a DMCA takedown. There doesn't seem to be a slam dunk obvious (and easy) solution for creating stable Schelling Points for developers to collaborate on legally dubious projects like Youtube-dl that's the target of RIAA.

parliament32 6y ago

Git will happily push/pull to/from repos on your peers' computers, and you could just, you know, email a list of people instead of depending on a central mailing list for discussion. It'll suck to onboard new people but it's entirely possible to have a Git project + discussion without a single central point of failure.