> Developers are now raw meat encouraged to get stars, followers and commit counters, doing the most stupid things in the most appealing way to get visibility!

> Developers are now raw meat encouraged to get stars, followers and commit counters, doing the most stupid things in the most appealing way to get visibility! Yeah! Engagement! Followers! Audience! I'm not sure what's wrong here. Pre-GitHub, most OSS happened via mailing lists (and for some core projects, it still does). The idea was to make a more polished, perhaps more social UI to browse code and repo (that wouldn't get overrun with spam and shady download like SourceForge did...). And you don't have to use any of those features if you don't want to! A lot of devs only use the repo and PR UI and don't care or even notice the follows, start or issue tracker. > Good code is written when people are focused, thinking hard about a problem while having the time to grasp the big picture. Modern Github seems to be purposely built as a tool to avoid people thinking about what they do and discourage them from writing anything but a new JavaScript framework. That's such a bizarre take. How is GitHub incentivizing people to only write JS Frameworks? You can write pretty much anything you want on GitHub... > I've migrated all of my own projects to Sourcehut (where I've a paid account) or to my university self-hosted gitlab. It's great when you have a datacenter and full time sysadmins to maintain a GitLab install. That's precisely why people (who didn't have those resources) went with GitHub. Plus, let's be honest, compensation from GitLab has never been competitive with Github, and they tried normalizing some weird CoL adjustments that made little sense. We all know where devs who got offers from both companies ended up working...