3 ms·

This is reductive, but I am going to repeat the idea that you should not be trusting Microsoft in the first place. Their GitHub acquisition, VSCode, and CodeSp

This is reductive, but I am going to repeat the idea that you should not be trusting Microsoft in the first place. Their GitHub acquisition, VSCode, and CodeSpaces are clearly a moat-building towards making GitHub yet another version of Office 365 where you have to pay $$$ for developer tools. GitHub's workflow already bears little resemblance to a "real" Git workflow, and in 7-10 more years I predict that they will try to marginalize it until you can't actually make commits if you're not using the web UI. Everything Microsoft-related should be considered closed-source and avoided if you have interest in Open Source as more than just a license. The management at Microsoft has way too many non-technical people focused on "user engagement" and "mindshare" for them to think in terms of OSS principles. They are not evil – they just don't "get" it. So I would strongly suggest avoiding any developer-focused products from Microsoft for the next 10 years if cross-platform parity or Open Source are high on your list of values. If not, that's fine too. I advise buying and using a Windows laptop for a first-class Microsoft Developer Experience.

skohan 5y ago
I have started moving projects to GitLab just because I don't think it's healthy for MS to have such a big footprint in OSS
Waterluvian 5y ago
The “real” got workflow is the one that works. GitHub really helps me focus on real work and not software bookkeeping. But I agree with the thesis of your comment.
- pritambaral 5y ago
  Writing code isn't all there is that can be considered 'real work'. Reviewing code is also real work. Re-reviwing code after it has been checked in is also real work. GitHub is a real hindrance for reviewing code, and the dumb practices its infantilised review system forces you into make it a nightmare to re-review code after check in.
colejohnson66 5y ago
> GitHub's workflow already bears little resemblance to a "real" Git workflow, Which is? Email lists? GitHub is much easier to deal with than scouring through email threads. It may work for Linux, GNU, and more, but it doesn’t for the majority of devs.
- pritambaral 5y ago
  Email isn't the only way Git is used. In fact, email is explicitly external to Git; Got just cooperates well with it. You know what else Git cooperates with better? Push, pull, rebase, squash, a whole world of branching strategies etc. GitHub's PR model is artificially gimped against many useful features of git, to the point where I suspect they actively hate users creating commits and want themselves to be the only ones who can make them. Their PR model actively fights any kind of commit-based review; to the point of erasing access to old, rewritten commits. Even their diff model is proprietary — and inadequate. You can only diff individual files against previous pushes, and that too only if you manually marked each file as 'viewed'. Diff two tips (read: heads)? Forget about it. You can't have it. Do it out dumbed-down PR way, with a pileup of correction commits you can't squash properly, and be happy you were given the privilege.
  - noway421 5y ago
    You can diff two tips like so: https://github.com/{org}/{repo}/compare/{commitish1}..{commitish2} https://github.com/{org}/{repo}/compare/{commitish1}..{commi... Example: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/compare/0.65-stable..0.66-stable https://github.com/facebook/react-native/compare/0.65-stable...
    - pritambaral 5y ago
      Those are refs. Not commits. GitHub removes access to the old commits of a branch when the branch is force-pushed (say, after a rebase). I'm interested in comparing the branch in its current state against it's previous state.
      - 5y ago
DeathArrow 5y ago
I stopped caring about the phylosophy behind Open Source. I am interested if a particular piece of software will allow me to do my stuff easier, better, with lower costs and in a future proof way. Of course I would prefer the source code to be available but I can live without it.
DeathArrow 5y ago
>If not, that's fine too. I advise buying and using a Windows laptop for a first-class Microsoft Developer Experience Thank you for your nice advice. I started following it 20 years ago (with some short but numerous tries to use Linux and BSD as desktops). I use Windows desktops and laptops for all kind of development. Which is now mostly web microservices running under Kubernetes on Linux. When I developed Android apps and multiplatform games (Android, iOS and Web), Windows was still my preferred development platform.

skohan 5y ago

I have started moving projects to GitLab just because I don't think it's healthy for MS to have such a big footprint in OSS

Waterluvian 5y ago

The “real” got workflow is the one that works. GitHub really helps me focus on real work and not software bookkeeping. But I agree with the thesis of your comment.

pritambaral 5y ago
Writing code isn't all there is that can be considered 'real work'. Reviewing code is also real work. Re-reviwing code after it has been checked in is also real work. GitHub is a real hindrance for reviewing code, and the dumb practices its infantilised review system forces you into make it a nightmare to re-review code after check in.

colejohnson66 5y ago

> GitHub's workflow already bears little resemblance to a "real" Git workflow, Which is? Email lists? GitHub is much easier to deal with than scouring through email threads. It may work for Linux, GNU, and more, but it doesn’t for the majority of devs.

pritambaral 5y ago
Email isn't the only way Git is used. In fact, email is explicitly external to Git; Got just cooperates well with it. You know what else Git cooperates with better? Push, pull, rebase, squash, a whole world of branching strategies etc. GitHub's PR model is artificially gimped against many useful features of git, to the point where I suspect they actively hate users creating commits and want themselves to be the only ones who can make them. Their PR model actively fights any kind of commit-based review; to the point of erasing access to old, rewritten commits. Even their diff model is proprietary — and inadequate. You can only diff individual files against previous pushes, and that too only if you manually marked each file as 'viewed'. Diff two tips (read: heads)? Forget about it. You can't have it. Do it out dumbed-down PR way, with a pileup of correction commits you can't squash properly, and be happy you were given the privilege.
- noway421 5y ago
  You can diff two tips like so: https://github.com/{org}/{repo}/compare/{commitish1}..{commitish2} https://github.com/{org}/{repo}/compare/{commitish1}..{commi... Example: https://github.com/facebook/react-native/compare/0.65-stable..0.66-stable https://github.com/facebook/react-native/compare/0.65-stable...
  - pritambaral 5y ago
    Those are refs. Not commits. GitHub removes access to the old commits of a branch when the branch is force-pushed (say, after a rebase). I'm interested in comparing the branch in its current state against it's previous state.
    - 5y ago

DeathArrow 5y ago

I stopped caring about the phylosophy behind Open Source. I am interested if a particular piece of software will allow me to do my stuff easier, better, with lower costs and in a future proof way. Of course I would prefer the source code to be available but I can live without it.

DeathArrow 5y ago

>If not, that's fine too. I advise buying and using a Windows laptop for a first-class Microsoft Developer Experience Thank you for your nice advice. I started following it 20 years ago (with some short but numerous tries to use Linux and BSD as desktops). I use Windows desktops and laptops for all kind of development. Which is now mostly web microservices running under Kubernetes on Linux. When I developed Android apps and multiplatform games (Android, iOS and Web), Windows was still my preferred development platform.