4 ms·

>why isn't it open-source? Most likely support. GH probably doesn’t want to support an open source version (triaging issues, reviewing 3rd party pull requests,

>why isn't it open-source? Most likely support. GH probably doesn’t want to support an open source version (triaging issues, reviewing 3rd party pull requests, having an open roadmap). Likewise it would probably be bad PR if they just dumped the code base and were really slow (or didn’t) respond to bug reports. Being open source requires a lot more than just the source code being available.

resynth1943 6y ago
True. Reddit did that, and it definitely backfired.
- arthurcolle 6y ago
  how so?
  - hundchenkatze 6y ago
    Here's Reddit's announcement about going "closed source". They list similar challenges to that mentioned by the GP comment. https://www.reddit.com/r/changelog/comments/6xfyfg/an_update_on_the_state_of_the_redditreddit_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/changelog/comments/6xfyfg/an_update...
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
> Being open source requires a lot more than just the source code being available. Well, you don't necessarily have to do those things. See for instance Apple's XNU Kernel. :)
- jart 6y ago
  Yes but Apple doesn't post XNU on GitHub. They publish codebase snapshots to a read-only website every once in a while. They have a GitHub mirror of the XNU codebase, but it's a few years behind and its Issue Tracker is disabled. Apple should engage more with the community. However the community needs to engage conscientiously. This leak is bad news, since it's the exact sort of behavior Apple probably wanted to avoid. It's so disrespectful. Last thing we want is for other companies like GitHub to think, "wow Apple was right, maximum engineering secrecy by default is the way to go."
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    > Last thing we want is for other companies like GitHub to think, "wow Apple was right, maximum engineering secrecy by default is the way to go." Well, "maximum engineering secrecy" would be not releasing the source code to XNU. Apple is very secretive overall, to be sure, but not in this one respect. I'm glad that XNU's source code is available—it lets you do a number of neat things. I wish more was available, but I'll take what we can get. By extension, I don't support the idea that there's no point in releasing source code if you can't also release documentation and review outside pull requests. Making a tool available to the public is always better than hoarding information. All the other stuff is even better, but code is code. --- All of that said, I recognize that for Github specifically, releasing code and not engaging with it might be a bad look, because their product is a code sharing platform. I don't think that applies to most companies, though.
- r-w 6y ago
  I'd argue that's an even worse look for an org like GitHub.
avlewis 6y ago
I never really realized how much effort goes into open source or the community dynamics that power it until I read that Working In Public book by Nadia Eghbal. Really shines a great light on the dynamics and effort required to keep alot of these projects going.
- pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
  Nadia Eghbal worked at GitHub, so her perspective will be skewed by the dominant influence. The GitHub way of working has only been around since GitHub launched. Accordingly, the free software and open source communities that predate GitHub had their own ways of working before GitHub came along. Despite the widespread perception that GitHub makes doing open source easy, it comprises a set of practices that can be and are frequently more taxing than the alternatives. If GitHub is all you know, though, or you've forgotten, or you've just not noticed and never measured it, then it's easy to think that the GutHub way embodies the essentials of development in the open, even though its workflows are pretty bloated.
  - nemothekid 6y ago
    What does that matter though? Is the expectation that GitHub would have managed it's open source offering outside of GitHub?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
      The comment was a direct response to the other (about how much effort it takes to do open source [on GitHub]). I can't make full sense of your questions, but what is possible to make out doesn't seem to follow from the comment you're replying to.
  - quickthrower2 6y ago
    Sounds like Github want's features to please it's paying customers more than open source (which is the marketing channel), which makes sense.
naikrovek 6y ago
It's not open source because the open source "community" is a liability and you want them far away from you at all times. I'm not trying to be mean or sarcastic or anything. Just look at how maintainers are treated for a week and you'll see exactly what I mean.
- metiscus 6y ago
  While I understand the intent of your comment.. I think your unfortunate word choice may cause some bad optics.
  - naikrovek 6y ago
    Well, I'm not a CEO, so I don't care about optics.
  - chronogram 6y ago
    You should say what words are unfortunately chosen, because you can't expect every reader to know the current list of unfortunates.
- bawolff 6y ago
  So its like every other customer-service job. Just with less pay ;) Just because something is open source, does not mean you have to engage with the "community". Slapping GPL on some code on a git repo somewhere, with a big sign saying if you don't like it you have the right to fork, so please fork off, is also open source, and a totally ok thing to do if you don't want to develop a community [Open source maintainers don't owe the world anything beyond what they freely want to give it]
NormenNomen 6y ago
Half the point of explicit licensing is to provide the software "as is".

resynth1943 6y ago

True. Reddit did that, and it definitely backfired.

arthurcolle 6y ago
how so?
- hundchenkatze 6y ago
  Here's Reddit's announcement about going "closed source". They list similar challenges to that mentioned by the GP comment. https://www.reddit.com/r/changelog/comments/6xfyfg/an_update_on_the_state_of_the_redditreddit_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/changelog/comments/6xfyfg/an_update...

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

> Being open source requires a lot more than just the source code being available. Well, you don't necessarily have to do those things. See for instance Apple's XNU Kernel. :)

jart 6y ago
Yes but Apple doesn't post XNU on GitHub. They publish codebase snapshots to a read-only website every once in a while. They have a GitHub mirror of the XNU codebase, but it's a few years behind and its Issue Tracker is disabled. Apple should engage more with the community. However the community needs to engage conscientiously. This leak is bad news, since it's the exact sort of behavior Apple probably wanted to avoid. It's so disrespectful. Last thing we want is for other companies like GitHub to think, "wow Apple was right, maximum engineering secrecy by default is the way to go."
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  > Last thing we want is for other companies like GitHub to think, "wow Apple was right, maximum engineering secrecy by default is the way to go." Well, "maximum engineering secrecy" would be not releasing the source code to XNU. Apple is very secretive overall, to be sure, but not in this one respect. I'm glad that XNU's source code is available—it lets you do a number of neat things. I wish more was available, but I'll take what we can get. By extension, I don't support the idea that there's no point in releasing source code if you can't also release documentation and review outside pull requests. Making a tool available to the public is always better than hoarding information. All the other stuff is even better, but code is code. --- All of that said, I recognize that for Github specifically, releasing code and not engaging with it might be a bad look, because their product is a code sharing platform. I don't think that applies to most companies, though.
r-w 6y ago
I'd argue that's an even worse look for an org like GitHub.

avlewis 6y ago

I never really realized how much effort goes into open source or the community dynamics that power it until I read that Working In Public book by Nadia Eghbal. Really shines a great light on the dynamics and effort required to keep alot of these projects going.

pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
Nadia Eghbal worked at GitHub, so her perspective will be skewed by the dominant influence. The GitHub way of working has only been around since GitHub launched. Accordingly, the free software and open source communities that predate GitHub had their own ways of working before GitHub came along. Despite the widespread perception that GitHub makes doing open source easy, it comprises a set of practices that can be and are frequently more taxing than the alternatives. If GitHub is all you know, though, or you've forgotten, or you've just not noticed and never measured it, then it's easy to think that the GutHub way embodies the essentials of development in the open, even though its workflows are pretty bloated.
- nemothekid 6y ago
  What does that matter though? Is the expectation that GitHub would have managed it's open source offering outside of GitHub?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
    The comment was a direct response to the other (about how much effort it takes to do open source [on GitHub]). I can't make full sense of your questions, but what is possible to make out doesn't seem to follow from the comment you're replying to.
- quickthrower2 6y ago
  Sounds like Github want's features to please it's paying customers more than open source (which is the marketing channel), which makes sense.

naikrovek 6y ago

It's not open source because the open source "community" is a liability and you want them far away from you at all times. I'm not trying to be mean or sarcastic or anything. Just look at how maintainers are treated for a week and you'll see exactly what I mean.

metiscus 6y ago
While I understand the intent of your comment.. I think your unfortunate word choice may cause some bad optics.
- naikrovek 6y ago
  Well, I'm not a CEO, so I don't care about optics.
- chronogram 6y ago
  You should say what words are unfortunately chosen, because you can't expect every reader to know the current list of unfortunates.
bawolff 6y ago
So its like every other customer-service job. Just with less pay ;) Just because something is open source, does not mean you have to engage with the "community". Slapping GPL on some code on a git repo somewhere, with a big sign saying if you don't like it you have the right to fork, so please fork off, is also open source, and a totally ok thing to do if you don't want to develop a community [Open source maintainers don't owe the world anything beyond what they freely want to give it]

NormenNomen 6y ago

Half the point of explicit licensing is to provide the software "as is".