4 ms·

How? I don’t buy it. If MSFT commits GPL code to Linux or git, then does something objectionable, how is the community any worse off than before? Worst case, re

How? I don’t buy it. If MSFT commits GPL code to Linux or git, then does something objectionable, how is the community any worse off than before? Worst case, revert the change. For github I buy it, it is a service which people cannot directly self host.

phpisthebest 4y ago
Well in the case of git they use github and azure devops to "extend" the workflow of software development to where developers depend upon the non-opensource features added to the workflow where things like issues, wiki's, git specific pull request workflows etc etc etc This makes it hard to move out of the non-open ecosystem For Linux 90% of their commits is about locking people into Azure In both cases they are building a separate community around their flavors of the projects not the projects themselves. You use "Github" not git, you use "AzureLinux" not linux, etc etc etc I know young devs that have no idea that GitHub and Git are different things
- LadyCailin 4y ago
  Sure, I agree that EEE can absolutely apply to services which are purchased and then controlled by MSFT, but if MSFT is building up a community around software, and that generates positive changes (or even just no/neutral changes) to the original, GPL'd software, then whatever community existed there before, and the users who aren't using the various services remain at best improved (if good contributions are pushed back in) or at worst completely unaffected. Just stop using Github and run your own git server, and you lose nothing that you didn't already have before Github existed.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    This strikes at the common "just build your own" meme / rebuttal to everyone that complains about well anthing by big tech these days Open Source software, like social media and most other human endeavors has a network effect to it, that is why these companies want to control the users and do not embrace open protocols, This idea of "well just run your own git server" is fine, i do that, but if I want to have a SUCCESSFUL, and POPULAR open source project today, it almost has to be on github at this point, the idea that I would get 100's or even 10's of people to commit, used, interact with my project on a random site running gitea is just not realistic That is the point and desire of EEE, I am not sure why people do not understand this, why people refuse to think about the network effect, etc
    - bogantech 4y ago
      > but if I want to have a SUCCESSFUL, and POPULAR open source project today, it almost has to be on github at this point Hello have you heard of gitlab.com?
      - OmarAssadi 4y ago
        I don’t hate GitLab, and I do appreciate the open-core aspect of it and the competition. However, despite its popularity for businesses, I think GitHub, for better or for worse, is unquestionably the best choice in terms of reaching people (for most projects, at least; the benefits of GitHub may be less relevant or even negatives for certain projects, like particularly niche privacy/freedom related ones, or alternatives to GitHub or completely different version control systems). I’d also like to note that GitLab has a number of the same possible concerns in the sense that it is not completely opensource, libre, and standard. There are paid features and features that are specific to GitLab that people rely on. Perhaps things like SourceHut or CodeBerg (gitea) are better examples from that perspective. And I think those often fit the few projects that actively benefit from not being on GitHub due to those factors and the platforms’ views aligning more with potential contributors, etc. For personal, private use and such, Gitea has been what I have used for years. I find it has fit my needs better than GitLab, but I would still be hesitant to use it for much else, other than internal repos as a company, etc. edit: it only occurred after hitting submit that you might’ve been saying that GitLab itself is popular and successful despite not being on GitHub, not that GitLab brings the same benefits/negatives of GitHub. I’ll leave this post as is, though.
    - LadyCailin 4y ago
      But these are all arguments about GitHub. Your original assertion, which is the one that I am countering, is that git will be ruined by MSFT. It will not. Github may very well be ruined, but that could be said about it anyways, since it has always been a profit driven company, even before the MSFT acquisition.
      - phpisthebest 4y ago
        You are arguing technicalities, I am arguing practicality Let me break this down easier Git == Embrace GitHub == Extend Microsoft, through github is EXTENDING the functionality of GIT adding features and creating an entire ecosystem around those extended features making project non-portable so people can not just pickup their repo and move them to a GitLab or Gitea... That is the 2nd part of EEE.... Of course they are not going to add those features to the GPL version of Git, that would not enable them to EXTINGUISH Git... I am not sure what your argument is here, at some point it seems you fail to fully understand what EEE is,

phpisthebest 4y ago

Well in the case of git they use github and azure devops to "extend" the workflow of software development to where developers depend upon the non-opensource features added to the workflow where things like issues, wiki's, git specific pull request workflows etc etc etc This makes it hard to move out of the non-open ecosystem For Linux 90% of their commits is about locking people into Azure In both cases they are building a separate community around their flavors of the projects not the projects themselves. You use "Github" not git, you use "AzureLinux" not linux, etc etc etc I know young devs that have no idea that GitHub and Git are different things

LadyCailin 4y ago
Sure, I agree that EEE can absolutely apply to services which are purchased and then controlled by MSFT, but if MSFT is building up a community around software, and that generates positive changes (or even just no/neutral changes) to the original, GPL'd software, then whatever community existed there before, and the users who aren't using the various services remain at best improved (if good contributions are pushed back in) or at worst completely unaffected. Just stop using Github and run your own git server, and you lose nothing that you didn't already have before Github existed.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  This strikes at the common "just build your own" meme / rebuttal to everyone that complains about well anthing by big tech these days Open Source software, like social media and most other human endeavors has a network effect to it, that is why these companies want to control the users and do not embrace open protocols, This idea of "well just run your own git server" is fine, i do that, but if I want to have a SUCCESSFUL, and POPULAR open source project today, it almost has to be on github at this point, the idea that I would get 100's or even 10's of people to commit, used, interact with my project on a random site running gitea is just not realistic That is the point and desire of EEE, I am not sure why people do not understand this, why people refuse to think about the network effect, etc
  - bogantech 4y ago
    > but if I want to have a SUCCESSFUL, and POPULAR open source project today, it almost has to be on github at this point Hello have you heard of gitlab.com?
    - OmarAssadi 4y ago
      I don’t hate GitLab, and I do appreciate the open-core aspect of it and the competition. However, despite its popularity for businesses, I think GitHub, for better or for worse, is unquestionably the best choice in terms of reaching people (for most projects, at least; the benefits of GitHub may be less relevant or even negatives for certain projects, like particularly niche privacy/freedom related ones, or alternatives to GitHub or completely different version control systems). I’d also like to note that GitLab has a number of the same possible concerns in the sense that it is not completely opensource, libre, and standard. There are paid features and features that are specific to GitLab that people rely on. Perhaps things like SourceHut or CodeBerg (gitea) are better examples from that perspective. And I think those often fit the few projects that actively benefit from not being on GitHub due to those factors and the platforms’ views aligning more with potential contributors, etc. For personal, private use and such, Gitea has been what I have used for years. I find it has fit my needs better than GitLab, but I would still be hesitant to use it for much else, other than internal repos as a company, etc. edit: it only occurred after hitting submit that you might’ve been saying that GitLab itself is popular and successful despite not being on GitHub, not that GitLab brings the same benefits/negatives of GitHub. I’ll leave this post as is, though.
  - LadyCailin 4y ago
    But these are all arguments about GitHub. Your original assertion, which is the one that I am countering, is that git will be ruined by MSFT. It will not. Github may very well be ruined, but that could be said about it anyways, since it has always been a profit driven company, even before the MSFT acquisition.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      You are arguing technicalities, I am arguing practicality Let me break this down easier Git == Embrace GitHub == Extend Microsoft, through github is EXTENDING the functionality of GIT adding features and creating an entire ecosystem around those extended features making project non-portable so people can not just pickup their repo and move them to a GitLab or Gitea... That is the 2nd part of EEE.... Of course they are not going to add those features to the GPL version of Git, that would not enable them to EXTINGUISH Git... I am not sure what your argument is here, at some point it seems you fail to fully understand what EEE is,