10 ms·

> Ironically, Git is a decentralized version control system. And Git is open source. Github is a US-registered company under MS. The US has a history of weapo

by cies 6y ago

> Ironically, Git is a decentralized version control system. And Git is open source. Github is a US-registered company under MS. The US has a history of weaponizing its economic power. Stallman (RMS) was right once again.

throwaway4good 6y ago
But Github is reason why git is popular ...
- jhasse 6y ago
  I doubt it.
  - richardwhiuk 6y ago
    There's definitely an argument that GitHub is one of the primary reasons that Git beat Mercurial.
    - ajsnigrutin 6y ago
      Yep! "One click" fork + "one click" pull request are its killer features.
    - dkersten 6y ago
      Anecdotally, I started using git because of projects on Github I wanted to contribute to. A number of others I know where in a similar boat. Before that, we used subversion, bazaar or mercurial. I personally am happy with having been pushed to using git and if it was winning anyway (not clear) I'm sure I would have eventually ended there anyway, but GitHub is the reason I started using it when I did.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - jhasse 6y ago
      I've used Mercurial. It sucks compared to Git. And not because I can't use it on GitHub.
      - richardwhiuk 6y ago
        It's tricky to compare them now, because Git won, it's got a lot more investment. Ideally you'd need to care them just before Git got the upper hand - but that's hard to pinpoint.
- owlmirror 6y ago
  Github sure contributed to the popularity, but I remeber distinctly as Git came out and how it took off like rocket. Git was a "killer app" from it's day of inception and everyone I knew switched their source control to it in late 2005 early 2006. It was a game changer to say the least. Github jumped on a already rolling bandwagon and left me ans many people I knew wondering why the hell you would need to host your projects there. (I am still a little bit puzzled but came to accept it as useful)
  - throwaway4good 6y ago
    Github fixes the problem that most users have with git (but are ashamed / too ignorant to admit): That it is de-centralized.
    - Pet_Ant 6y ago
      > Github fixes the problem that most users have with git (but are ashamed / too ignorant to admit): That it is de-centralized. Git is designed for an environment where there are multiple canonical trunks. RedHats kernel is equally a master as SuSe's. So you are maintaining various tips in a semi-synchronized manner. In most projects there is a single repository branch that is the true branch (with perhaps a few tags for LTR) that represents the project. For that reason a lot of Git's mechanisms are unneeded complexity. The killer features of Git is GitHub, and to a lesser degree local commits (after all, Mercurial has that too).
x3c 6y ago
This particular case was overreach by Github and not the US Lawmakers. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/118 https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/... 118. I have a client that is in Iran to visit a relative. Do I need to restrict the account? A: No. As long as you are satisfied that the client is not ordinarily resident in Iran, then the account does not need to be restricted. See FAQ 37. Source: https://twitter.com/Hamed/status/1346433510786138114/photo/1 https://twitter.com/Hamed/status/1346433510786138114/photo/1
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  It may be overreach by GitHub, but given the severity of the sanctions lawmakers have set for if they happen to get it wrong, I'd like to at least blame lawmakers for creating such a risky situation.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    I work with sanctions. I think both can be easily blamed. Similarly to DMCA notices, most companies opt to for the path of least resistance ( it is cheaper to blanket ban than to investigate ). Yes, politicians are to blame for creating the environment, but companies deserve flak for taking the path that is bad for the customer ( unless they are sufficiently well-heeled ). My thoughts are my own. I do not represent anyone other than myself.
    - fennecfoxen 6y ago
      So look at (one one hand) a customer worth... well, PureLabs is "10 incredible FTEs," let's give them the $21/user/mo Enterprise plan at $210/month in revenue. On the other hand, a sanctions violation could be a $65,000 fine (Trading with the Enemy Act) or $250,000 (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) for each offense. (I leave aside the million-dollar narcotics-kingpin act). On top of this we also see the risk of criminal prosecution. In what world is it reasonable to expect anyone to take this chance?
      - 6y ago
elmo2you 6y ago
I would go quite a step further than that. If this was not an unfortunate incident/mistake, then GitHub/Microsoft has become quite the active enforcer of US (legal) foreign policy. If they do that within the US market, that might be justifiable. But in this particular case, GitHub appears to enforce US foreign policy on what appears to be a company on the EU market. Also in what to me appears to be a rather ruthless, totalitarian, maybe even draconian way. I'm pretty certain that absent this US law within the EU market, this action is arbitrarily discriminatory, and very likely constitutes inflicting serious damage on another company without a legal basis (within the US, yes .. outside the US, no). GitHub may find itself stuck, between adhering to US laws and laws elsewhere (in this case EU, but China is probably a good example too). Still, is ultimately is a choice for GitHub to offer their products on multiple markets. If they have issues with that, they are free to exit a particular market. It certainly is never a valid excuse to start violating law in any market outside whatever country your headquarter might be located. Tangentially, this rather typical popular belief that US companies can simply absolve themselves from legal liability, just by crafting clever TOS/EULA that supposedly does just that, has always confused to me. It was always my understanding that you can not create contracts that violate laws. In most countries with a somewhat sane state of law, governments really do not like or tolerate when companies start essentially making their own law in parallel. But apparently you can rewrite (even basic) law in the USA, as long as you can somehow get both parties to agree on it. Be that by free will or coercion. Maybe it's time, for other parts of the world to no longer put up with this kind of bullshit, and demand that US companies actually adhere to the laws (and legal protections) that exist within their markets, or be free to buzz off and only operate on the US market alone. With US foreign policy becoming increasingly self-serving, legally dubious, and in some case downright insane, having internationally operating companies enforcing those policies is becoming a seriously risky proposition for anyone outside the USA.
- mc32 6y ago
  ...” , this action is arbitrarily discriminatory, and very likely constitutes inflicting serious damage on another company without a legal basis...” Isn’t that what YouTube and FaceBook do day in day out when their influencers run afoul of policy?
fibers 6y ago
I'm not a pro dev by any means but what is stopping orgs from simply self hosting such a thing? Git is merely version control which supposedly does not take a lot of resources so you can go ahead and buy a dedicated server and host it in your office. Is the question more so about expanded services like CI/CD that may take up more computational resources to continuously build binaries and other deliverables?
- sjagoe 6y ago
  I would say it's less about the compute resources, and more about possibly needing a team dedicated to maintaining quite a lot of infrastructure to replace the features that GitHub has, which is far more extensive than just git hosting.
  - turbinerneiter 6y ago
    GitLab, Gitea or others provide most, if not all, and in some cases even more features than GitHub. Theiy are fully or partially Open Source and they are easy to host. You need to compare the cost of self-hosting to the cost of SaaS - INCLUDING the risk of getting locked out. One downside of the SaaS model is that you are just a very small customer in the bigger scheme and they can't really justify spending money on servicing you. Let's say you are company of 5 people, paying 50 bucks a month for a service - how many hours per year can they spend on servicing you before you become a net-negative account? You much power do you have in a negotiation if you are a net-negative account?
    - kavalg 6y ago
      WRT self hosting, GitLab could be painful, but Gitea is really easy to host and keep up to date.
      - risyachka 6y ago
        I've been self-hosting gitlab for few years now in my company and never had a problem.

by cies 6y ago

throwaway4good 6y ago

But Github is reason why git is popular ...

jhasse 6y ago
I doubt it.
- richardwhiuk 6y ago
  There's definitely an argument that GitHub is one of the primary reasons that Git beat Mercurial.
  - ajsnigrutin 6y ago
    Yep! "One click" fork + "one click" pull request are its killer features.
  - dkersten 6y ago
    Anecdotally, I started using git because of projects on Github I wanted to contribute to. A number of others I know where in a similar boat. Before that, we used subversion, bazaar or mercurial. I personally am happy with having been pushed to using git and if it was winning anyway (not clear) I'm sure I would have eventually ended there anyway, but GitHub is the reason I started using it when I did.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jhasse 6y ago
    I've used Mercurial. It sucks compared to Git. And not because I can't use it on GitHub.
    - richardwhiuk 6y ago
      It's tricky to compare them now, because Git won, it's got a lot more investment. Ideally you'd need to care them just before Git got the upper hand - but that's hard to pinpoint.
owlmirror 6y ago
Github sure contributed to the popularity, but I remeber distinctly as Git came out and how it took off like rocket. Git was a "killer app" from it's day of inception and everyone I knew switched their source control to it in late 2005 early 2006. It was a game changer to say the least. Github jumped on a already rolling bandwagon and left me ans many people I knew wondering why the hell you would need to host your projects there. (I am still a little bit puzzled but came to accept it as useful)
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  Github fixes the problem that most users have with git (but are ashamed / too ignorant to admit): That it is de-centralized.
  - Pet_Ant 6y ago
    > Github fixes the problem that most users have with git (but are ashamed / too ignorant to admit): That it is de-centralized. Git is designed for an environment where there are multiple canonical trunks. RedHats kernel is equally a master as SuSe's. So you are maintaining various tips in a semi-synchronized manner. In most projects there is a single repository branch that is the true branch (with perhaps a few tags for LTR) that represents the project. For that reason a lot of Git's mechanisms are unneeded complexity. The killer features of Git is GitHub, and to a lesser degree local commits (after all, Mercurial has that too).

x3c 6y ago

This particular case was overreach by Github and not the US Lawmakers. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/faqs/118 https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/... 118. I have a client that is in Iran to visit a relative. Do I need to restrict the account? A: No. As long as you are satisfied that the client is not ordinarily resident in Iran, then the account does not need to be restricted. See FAQ 37. Source: https://twitter.com/Hamed/status/1346433510786138114/photo/1 https://twitter.com/Hamed/status/1346433510786138114/photo/1

fennecfoxen 6y ago
It may be overreach by GitHub, but given the severity of the sanctions lawmakers have set for if they happen to get it wrong, I'd like to at least blame lawmakers for creating such a risky situation.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  I work with sanctions. I think both can be easily blamed. Similarly to DMCA notices, most companies opt to for the path of least resistance ( it is cheaper to blanket ban than to investigate ). Yes, politicians are to blame for creating the environment, but companies deserve flak for taking the path that is bad for the customer ( unless they are sufficiently well-heeled ). My thoughts are my own. I do not represent anyone other than myself.
  - fennecfoxen 6y ago
    So look at (one one hand) a customer worth... well, PureLabs is "10 incredible FTEs," let's give them the $21/user/mo Enterprise plan at $210/month in revenue. On the other hand, a sanctions violation could be a $65,000 fine (Trading with the Enemy Act) or $250,000 (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) for each offense. (I leave aside the million-dollar narcotics-kingpin act). On top of this we also see the risk of criminal prosecution. In what world is it reasonable to expect anyone to take this chance?
    - 6y ago

elmo2you 6y ago

I would go quite a step further than that. If this was not an unfortunate incident/mistake, then GitHub/Microsoft has become quite the active enforcer of US (legal) foreign policy. If they do that within the US market, that might be justifiable. But in this particular case, GitHub appears to enforce US foreign policy on what appears to be a company on the EU market. Also in what to me appears to be a rather ruthless, totalitarian, maybe even draconian way. I'm pretty certain that absent this US law within the EU market, this action is arbitrarily discriminatory, and very likely constitutes inflicting serious damage on another company without a legal basis (within the US, yes .. outside the US, no). GitHub may find itself stuck, between adhering to US laws and laws elsewhere (in this case EU, but China is probably a good example too). Still, is ultimately is a choice for GitHub to offer their products on multiple markets. If they have issues with that, they are free to exit a particular market. It certainly is never a valid excuse to start violating law in any market outside whatever country your headquarter might be located. Tangentially, this rather typical popular belief that US companies can simply absolve themselves from legal liability, just by crafting clever TOS/EULA that supposedly does just that, has always confused to me. It was always my understanding that you can not create contracts that violate laws. In most countries with a somewhat sane state of law, governments really do not like or tolerate when companies start essentially making their own law in parallel. But apparently you can rewrite (even basic) law in the USA, as long as you can somehow get both parties to agree on it. Be that by free will or coercion. Maybe it's time, for other parts of the world to no longer put up with this kind of bullshit, and demand that US companies actually adhere to the laws (and legal protections) that exist within their markets, or be free to buzz off and only operate on the US market alone. With US foreign policy becoming increasingly self-serving, legally dubious, and in some case downright insane, having internationally operating companies enforcing those policies is becoming a seriously risky proposition for anyone outside the USA.

mc32 6y ago
...” , this action is arbitrarily discriminatory, and very likely constitutes inflicting serious damage on another company without a legal basis...” Isn’t that what YouTube and FaceBook do day in day out when their influencers run afoul of policy?

fibers 6y ago

I'm not a pro dev by any means but what is stopping orgs from simply self hosting such a thing? Git is merely version control which supposedly does not take a lot of resources so you can go ahead and buy a dedicated server and host it in your office. Is the question more so about expanded services like CI/CD that may take up more computational resources to continuously build binaries and other deliverables?

sjagoe 6y ago
I would say it's less about the compute resources, and more about possibly needing a team dedicated to maintaining quite a lot of infrastructure to replace the features that GitHub has, which is far more extensive than just git hosting.
- turbinerneiter 6y ago
  GitLab, Gitea or others provide most, if not all, and in some cases even more features than GitHub. Theiy are fully or partially Open Source and they are easy to host. You need to compare the cost of self-hosting to the cost of SaaS - INCLUDING the risk of getting locked out. One downside of the SaaS model is that you are just a very small customer in the bigger scheme and they can't really justify spending money on servicing you. Let's say you are company of 5 people, paying 50 bucks a month for a service - how many hours per year can they spend on servicing you before you become a net-negative account? You much power do you have in a negotiation if you are a net-negative account?
  - kavalg 6y ago
    WRT self hosting, GitLab could be painful, but Gitea is really easy to host and keep up to date.
    - risyachka 6y ago
      I've been self-hosting gitlab for few years now in my company and never had a problem.