3 ms·
This argument also applies to GitHub, yet I’ve never seen an open source project criticized for hosting issues on GitHub. Both are proprietary websites owned b
by MatthiasPortzel 3y ago
This argument also applies to GitHub, yet I’ve never seen an open source project criticized for hosting issues on GitHub.
Both are proprietary websites owned by for-profit companies. Both require you to create an account in order to participate in discussion.
- pxc 3y agoMost sizeable F/OSS organizations track bugs somewhere other than GitHub for exactly that reason! Don't get me wrong. I get small developers defaulting to infrastructure they don't have to set up and maintain themselves, and I understand wanting to meet people where they're at. But it's definitely a problem that GitHub plays such a central role in F/OSS development, too.
- toastercat 3y agoA couple points: 1. Git is distributed by design. Hosting on Github tends to not be controversial because that code can also live on Gitea/Sourcehut/your private git server at the same time. If Github goes down, it does not really matter. Very different from Discord, where there is no way to actually backup server/channel data, and attempting to do so may be a violation of the ToS and get you IP banned. 2. Your argument hinges on the fact that you have never seen an open-source project criticized, but it does happen. The blogpost in the parent comment even suggests not hosting on Github.