3 ms·

I would make the exact opposite argument: We should make it easier for open source contributors to focus on their FOSS project instead of all the infrastructure

I would make the exact opposite argument: We should make it easier for open source contributors to focus on their FOSS project instead of all the infrastructure around it. This is an insight that's fairly undisputed in most other spaces (use the cloud because your business is not in running servers, use SaaS because your business is not in hosting applications etc...), yet somehow every maintainer of a "check-is-email" npm package is expected to host their own Matrix Instance, Git Server, Build Status Dashboard and ideally video tutorial portal? In fact, wouldn't it be great if Github would offer a public realtime discussion board for each repo so that everything about your project is in one place?

moffkalast 5y ago
In fact, wouldn't it be great if Github wasn't owned by a money grabbing multinational conglomerate? Yeah, that's not happening.
- wolframhempel 5y ago
  Does it provide more value to you than it expects you to put in?
  - moffkalast 5y ago
    Depends on how much my code is worth to them for their machine learning projects.
    - wolframhempel 5y ago
      All the reflexive anti-capitalism/anti-corporatism aside, the emergence of company-backed hubs such as Github has been a massive accelerator of the success and overall relevance of open source. When FOSS was confined to Linus Torvalds and co, sharing postings on Usenet groups, transparency and adoption stayed low and larger adopters rather paid intermediaries like Redhat to mitigate the risks of what was perceived as "niche software". Today, open-source is an undisputed standard and has a bustling scene of creators - made possible by easy-to-use and accessible tooling and hubs. Operating these isn't free - but in difference to OS itself, I don't think there is any inherent conflict between providing OS infrastructure and a profit motive. Maybe there will be a fully decentralized, blockchain-based version of Github with individual users contributing for the value they receive in the future, but until then Github - whether owned by MS or not - remains a massive enabler for OS at large.

moffkalast 5y ago

In fact, wouldn't it be great if Github wasn't owned by a money grabbing multinational conglomerate? Yeah, that's not happening.

wolframhempel 5y ago
Does it provide more value to you than it expects you to put in?
- moffkalast 5y ago
  Depends on how much my code is worth to them for their machine learning projects.
  - wolframhempel 5y ago
    All the reflexive anti-capitalism/anti-corporatism aside, the emergence of company-backed hubs such as Github has been a massive accelerator of the success and overall relevance of open source. When FOSS was confined to Linus Torvalds and co, sharing postings on Usenet groups, transparency and adoption stayed low and larger adopters rather paid intermediaries like Redhat to mitigate the risks of what was perceived as "niche software". Today, open-source is an undisputed standard and has a bustling scene of creators - made possible by easy-to-use and accessible tooling and hubs. Operating these isn't free - but in difference to OS itself, I don't think there is any inherent conflict between providing OS infrastructure and a profit motive. Maybe there will be a fully decentralized, blockchain-based version of Github with individual users contributing for the value they receive in the future, but until then Github - whether owned by MS or not - remains a massive enabler for OS at large.