4 ms·

... it’s not obvious to me?

throw_m239339 5y ago
> ... it’s not obvious to me? If the source was maintained on Bitbucket, why the hell would bitbucket nuke the developer's account access? That's not their problem what happens on NPM. Github and NPM are defacto the exact same company on the other hand. Github actions are in retaliation of NPM "mispublishing".
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Marak didn't just mess with NPM. He also did a force push to his GitHub repo, replacing all the code there.
  - Karupan 5y ago
    So? It is a project under his username and he could've done anything he pleased with it. Not defending him, but banning him on GitHub instead of NPM is just bizarre.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      He got banned on GitHub for what he did to his GitHub repos. I don't see how that's bizarre.
      - Karupan 5y ago
        But why though? If I do the same to a repo I own, will I be banned? What if I introduced a infinite loop in a library I maintain? Just because the library was popular and had millions of downloads, doesn't mean it must be treated differently. People cannot argue that it is open source with a license which expressly doesn't have any warranties, and then cry foul if the author deletes it for whatever reason. If it was that important, you should've had better processes in place.
        NavinF 5y ago
        Of course you’ll get banned for intentionally sneaking that code into your library. At least that’s what I’d do if I was in charge and I assume most people would do the same. > license which expressly doesn't have any warranties, The license is about legal liability and has nothing to do with social norms. Though now that you mention it, I’m not sure if the “no warranty” clause will hold up in court when the bug is malicious and the author admits it was intentional.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        > He got banned on GitHub for what he did to his GitHub repos. I don't see how that's bizarre. You don't?!? That's bizarre... Here, re-read your first sentence: "He got banned on GitHub for what he did to HIS GitHub repos." I added some helpful emphasis; did you catch it? If not, riddle me this: How many people did he force to download stuff from his GitHub repositories?
- chii 5y ago
  > why the hell would bitbucket nuke the developer's account access? a counter-factual that isn't known or proven. May be bitbucket would also nuke the repo, if NPM asked them and show proof that it contains malicious code. It would prevent spread, and would prevent damage.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    >> why the hell would bitbucket nuke the developer's account access? > a counter-factual that isn't known or proven. No, it's a question. Questions can't be "known or proven"; only answers can.

> ... it’s not obvious to me? If the source was maintained on Bitbucket, why the hell would bitbucket nuke the developer's account access? That's not their problem what happens on NPM. Github and NPM are defacto the exact same company on the other hand. Github actions are in retaliation of NPM "mispublishing".

josephcsible 5y ago
Marak didn't just mess with NPM. He also did a force push to his GitHub repo, replacing all the code there.
- Karupan 5y ago
  So? It is a project under his username and he could've done anything he pleased with it. Not defending him, but banning him on GitHub instead of NPM is just bizarre.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    He got banned on GitHub for what he did to his GitHub repos. I don't see how that's bizarre.
    - Karupan 5y ago
      But why though? If I do the same to a repo I own, will I be banned? What if I introduced a infinite loop in a library I maintain? Just because the library was popular and had millions of downloads, doesn't mean it must be treated differently. People cannot argue that it is open source with a license which expressly doesn't have any warranties, and then cry foul if the author deletes it for whatever reason. If it was that important, you should've had better processes in place.
      - NavinF 5y ago
        Of course you’ll get banned for intentionally sneaking that code into your library. At least that’s what I’d do if I was in charge and I assume most people would do the same. > license which expressly doesn't have any warranties, The license is about legal liability and has nothing to do with social norms. Though now that you mention it, I’m not sure if the “no warranty” clause will hold up in court when the bug is malicious and the author admits it was intentional.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > He got banned on GitHub for what he did to his GitHub repos. I don't see how that's bizarre. You don't?!? That's bizarre... Here, re-read your first sentence: "He got banned on GitHub for what he did to HIS GitHub repos." I added some helpful emphasis; did you catch it? If not, riddle me this: How many people did he force to download stuff from his GitHub repositories?
chii 5y ago
> why the hell would bitbucket nuke the developer's account access? a counter-factual that isn't known or proven. May be bitbucket would also nuke the repo, if NPM asked them and show proof that it contains malicious code. It would prevent spread, and would prevent damage.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  >> why the hell would bitbucket nuke the developer's account access? > a counter-factual that isn't known or proven. No, it's a question. Questions can't be "known or proven"; only answers can.