5 ms·

It's a shame proprietary Discord is their only communication option, and proprietary GitHub their only Git mirror. They're even advertising the Discord in the C

It's a shame proprietary Discord is their only communication option, and proprietary GitHub their only Git mirror. They're even advertising the Discord in the CLI (https://github.com/Jarred-Sumner/bun/blob/e4fb84275715bb4de4b541f6de0ede4b5ce3e10a/src/cli/discord_command.zig https://github.com/Jarred-Sumner/bun/blob/e4fb84275715bb4de4...). Also the shorthand syntax `bun create github-user/repo-name destination` is favoring users choosing GitHub above others instead of not favoring any specific Git forge (the best path I've seen is how nixpkgs supports github:u/repo gitlab:u/repo sourcehut:~u/repo etc. to shorthand popular options but not favoring any, while still being flexible enough to continue extending).

crabmusket 4y ago
Even Go's famously-derided "package management" used full URLs like `import "github.com/user/repo"`
- toastal 4y ago
  The Vim plugin communities are notorious about the GitHub bias too with almost everything just assuming GitHub. npm is supports shorthands for some Git forges (though no SourceHut or Codeberg), but without the `forge:` syntax, you get GitHub as the default which is also favoritism (no surprise with Microsoft owning GitHub and npm though). The worst offender IMO though is Elm who ties their entire package management ecosystem to GitHub where both your identity and the ability to upload a package requires a GitHub account and hosting must be there too, and downloading requires that GitHub's servers are actually up (with the community needing hacks to deal with the non-so-uncommon likelihood of GitHub being down and no way to point to a mirror).
tasubotadas 4y ago
Why is a proprietary communication tools is a problem? What's next? It's gonna be a shameful practice to use windows for development?
- toastal 4y ago
  > Why is a proprietary communication tools is a problem? You're signaling to all contributors that you don't value their freedom or privacy. Not everyone wants to give their data to a corporation. Some users have accessibility needs that straight aren't met by Discord's clients and they send cease-and-desists to every attempt at people to try to make a better or safer alternative client experience free of charge. The fact that there are free and libre alternatives, but choosing not use or at least support an alternative alongside shows your project's priorities (see: Libera.Chat, mailing lists, Matrix, Zulip, Fediverse, RSS/Atom feeds, hosting Discourse, et. al.). > What's next? It's gonna be a shameful practice to use windows for development? Slippery nope.
  - oorza 4y ago
    It's a cost-benefit analysis, like everything else. Supporting only github more than qualifies the Pareto need for the feature, as does Discord for realtime communication. None of the alternatives you mentioned to Discord, for example, are likely to already have a client installed for the vast majority of developers; with that as a litmus, the choices are effectively Discord or Slack. When you're doing the hard calculus of how to spend your most precious resource (time) in a FOSS project, you have to weigh the costs and rewards. Only supporting Github likely has no statistically significant difference in likelihood for contributions. Similarly, hosting conversations on an unusual platform most users are not already using increases the friction of their contributions, so you choose the most popular platform. I'm sure this project's community would welcome a contribution to mirror their git in a read-only state somewhere else, because why wouldn't they? Similarly, I'm sure they'd be fine with collaborating on setting up bidirectional chat bots so you can communicate with them as you want. But to expect these things from a nascent project seems ridiculous. We're not talking about React or Spring here, we're talking about a brand new project who should be investing as much time as possible making their software work, not catering to every potential communications niche. If you've decided that contributing to someone else's code on Github violates your sense of ethics or privacy, that's well within your rights and I respect you for it, but you must have enough self-awareness to recognize that that puts you in the far extreme of digital ethicists. And that shouldn't come with an expectation that your ethics have been catered to.

crabmusket 4y ago

Even Go's famously-derided "package management" used full URLs like `import "github.com/user/repo"`

toastal 4y ago
The Vim plugin communities are notorious about the GitHub bias too with almost everything just assuming GitHub. npm is supports shorthands for some Git forges (though no SourceHut or Codeberg), but without the `forge:` syntax, you get GitHub as the default which is also favoritism (no surprise with Microsoft owning GitHub and npm though). The worst offender IMO though is Elm who ties their entire package management ecosystem to GitHub where both your identity and the ability to upload a package requires a GitHub account and hosting must be there too, and downloading requires that GitHub's servers are actually up (with the community needing hacks to deal with the non-so-uncommon likelihood of GitHub being down and no way to point to a mirror).

tasubotadas 4y ago

Why is a proprietary communication tools is a problem? What's next? It's gonna be a shameful practice to use windows for development?

toastal 4y ago
> Why is a proprietary communication tools is a problem? You're signaling to all contributors that you don't value their freedom or privacy. Not everyone wants to give their data to a corporation. Some users have accessibility needs that straight aren't met by Discord's clients and they send cease-and-desists to every attempt at people to try to make a better or safer alternative client experience free of charge. The fact that there are free and libre alternatives, but choosing not use or at least support an alternative alongside shows your project's priorities (see: Libera.Chat, mailing lists, Matrix, Zulip, Fediverse, RSS/Atom feeds, hosting Discourse, et. al.). > What's next? It's gonna be a shameful practice to use windows for development? Slippery nope.
- oorza 4y ago
  It's a cost-benefit analysis, like everything else. Supporting only github more than qualifies the Pareto need for the feature, as does Discord for realtime communication. None of the alternatives you mentioned to Discord, for example, are likely to already have a client installed for the vast majority of developers; with that as a litmus, the choices are effectively Discord or Slack. When you're doing the hard calculus of how to spend your most precious resource (time) in a FOSS project, you have to weigh the costs and rewards. Only supporting Github likely has no statistically significant difference in likelihood for contributions. Similarly, hosting conversations on an unusual platform most users are not already using increases the friction of their contributions, so you choose the most popular platform. I'm sure this project's community would welcome a contribution to mirror their git in a read-only state somewhere else, because why wouldn't they? Similarly, I'm sure they'd be fine with collaborating on setting up bidirectional chat bots so you can communicate with them as you want. But to expect these things from a nascent project seems ridiculous. We're not talking about React or Spring here, we're talking about a brand new project who should be investing as much time as possible making their software work, not catering to every potential communications niche. If you've decided that contributing to someone else's code on Github violates your sense of ethics or privacy, that's well within your rights and I respect you for it, but you must have enough self-awareness to recognize that that puts you in the far extreme of digital ethicists. And that shouldn't come with an expectation that your ethics have been catered to.