4 ms·

> As an individual or a small business, ones does not have an alternative to - Microsoft Word — Google Docs? Apple Pages? Zoho Docs? OpenOffice? - GitHub — Gi

> As an individual or a small business, ones does not have an alternative to - Microsoft Word — Google Docs? Apple Pages? Zoho Docs? OpenOffice? - GitHub — GitLab? sourcehut? Bitbucket? Gitea? - Facebook — Twitter? Instagram? TikTok? SnapChat? The thing about Git is that it's free software. Anyone can run their own server for very little money. If you get banned from the railroad, you can't just get your own train.

peterbraden 4y ago
So what if the company you work for requires github?
- acdha 4y ago
  That’s between you and your boss, and likely your GitHub account rep. It’s still not a monopoly just because someone voluntarily chooses not to use alternatives.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- andsoitis 4y ago
  Create a new GitHub account that you use for work.
- 7steps2much 4y ago
  In that case use your company provided account. Just like all tools I would expect that to be provided by the company and as such availability of these tools wouldn't be my problem. Also, use a private account for private stuff, if that wasn't obvious
blagie 4y ago
Thing is, if I got banned from github, I couldn't contribute to pytorch or many other projects I've contributed to. And if I ran my own server, no one would contribute to mine. The value comes from the network.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  That's between you and the maintainers of those projects. You can contribute to different projects, or they can use a different forge. Your argument is basically "GitHub shouldn't be allowed to deny me service because I want to use it," but you're not entitled to something just because you want it.
  - blagie 4y ago
    The reason we have antitrust regulations is because the world ended up in a very bad place without them. This: "GitHub shouldn't be allowed to deny me service because I want to use it" isn't a fair paraphrasing of my argument. I don't think it's likely that github would ban me specifically. My argument is Microsoft (and Google, Facebook, etc.) shouldn't be allowed to cancel/bankrupt/ostracize competitors, critics, political opponents, or others they don't like. That means we should all be able to access those platforms under equal RAND terms. If Microsoft is allowed to play dirty, the major impact on me is indirect, in that we will have fewer checks-and-balances in society (people and organizations will be afraid to criticise them), less competition, less innovation, more political corruption, etc. Antitrust hasn't kept up with technology. In this case, though, we developed perfectly good mechanisms (and learned what happens without them) a century ago.
    - andrekandre 4y ago
      > Antitrust hasn't kept up with technology. im not sure its so much a technology issue as much as an ideology shift...? (a.k.a robert bork and the "its not consumer harm if prices keep going down" school of thought with regard to anti-trust)
      - blagie 4y ago
        It's very much technology. With Standard Oil, prices didn't go down, except in the very short term. Monopoly can seek out higher profits once monopoly is obtained. The pricing of LinkedIn, of dating web sites (almost all now owned by match.com), and of many other services is astronomically high, mostly because they can.

peterbraden 4y ago

So what if the company you work for requires github?

acdha 4y ago
That’s between you and your boss, and likely your GitHub account rep. It’s still not a monopoly just because someone voluntarily chooses not to use alternatives.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
andsoitis 4y ago
Create a new GitHub account that you use for work.
7steps2much 4y ago
In that case use your company provided account. Just like all tools I would expect that to be provided by the company and as such availability of these tools wouldn't be my problem. Also, use a private account for private stuff, if that wasn't obvious

blagie 4y ago

Thing is, if I got banned from github, I couldn't contribute to pytorch or many other projects I've contributed to. And if I ran my own server, no one would contribute to mine. The value comes from the network.

jakelazaroff 4y ago
That's between you and the maintainers of those projects. You can contribute to different projects, or they can use a different forge. Your argument is basically "GitHub shouldn't be allowed to deny me service because I want to use it," but you're not entitled to something just because you want it.
- blagie 4y ago
  The reason we have antitrust regulations is because the world ended up in a very bad place without them. This: "GitHub shouldn't be allowed to deny me service because I want to use it" isn't a fair paraphrasing of my argument. I don't think it's likely that github would ban me specifically. My argument is Microsoft (and Google, Facebook, etc.) shouldn't be allowed to cancel/bankrupt/ostracize competitors, critics, political opponents, or others they don't like. That means we should all be able to access those platforms under equal RAND terms. If Microsoft is allowed to play dirty, the major impact on me is indirect, in that we will have fewer checks-and-balances in society (people and organizations will be afraid to criticise them), less competition, less innovation, more political corruption, etc. Antitrust hasn't kept up with technology. In this case, though, we developed perfectly good mechanisms (and learned what happens without them) a century ago.
  - andrekandre 4y ago
    > Antitrust hasn't kept up with technology. im not sure its so much a technology issue as much as an ideology shift...? (a.k.a robert bork and the "its not consumer harm if prices keep going down" school of thought with regard to anti-trust)
    - blagie 4y ago
      It's very much technology. With Standard Oil, prices didn't go down, except in the very short term. Monopoly can seek out higher profits once monopoly is obtained. The pricing of LinkedIn, of dating web sites (almost all now owned by match.com), and of many other services is astronomically high, mostly because they can.