3 ms·

GH could be doing more but they are also hosting open source, and closed source, repositories for free.

by frontalier 3y ago

omnimus 3y ago
Not exactly for free nowdays since they teach their AIs on the repos.
- vasdae 3y ago
  Yes, that's still exactly for free.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    Free doesn’t seem like a great name for situations in which profit is extracted from a user in a sort of nebulous fashion.
    - somsak2 3y ago
      you could say the same thing about ad based businesses. how else is the company supposed to cover its costs if it has a free service?
      - bee_rider 3y ago
        They aren’t free, they are ad funded. You pay for the service by viewing the ads. The only organizations that provide free services are, like, donation driven charities. Or hobbyist groups. Maybe somebody could argue for government funded organizations, but I don’t want to get into that whole can of worms.
phpisthebest 3y ago
[flagged]
- Zambyte 3y ago
  > anyone using github free account is the product. Also people who pay for their GitHub account.
- itsoktocry 3y ago
  >The folly here is you believe MS does this because they want to support open source...In reality they get a TON of value from this "free" service What is the difference? Nobody supports open source for the sake of it, we support it because we get tons of value from the "free" service. It sounds like incentives are properly aligned.
  - cs02rm0 3y ago
    Between a free service for gain and charity?
- bippihippi1 3y ago
  another common folly is thinking that paying puts you in a special tier. free stuff is solely funded by the value of data, ofc there are exceptions funded by donated money and hard work. The things that are made to make money though, don't suddenly stop using the value of your data because you pay for them.
- Karunamon 3y ago
  Github has no lock in.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    Sure it does, all the tooling around git that many people associate with git. Issues, Wiki, Automation (Github Actions) etc
    - Karunamon 3y ago
      https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2023/07/11/github-to-gitlab-migration-made-easy/ https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2023/07/11/github-to-gitlab-mi... The capability has existed to ingest all of that information (minus actions, there is no standard for that) for a long time. I stand by what I said. That isn't lock in.
musha68k 3y ago
Yes, perfect training grounds for your future “solo-pilot coding agent”. Let’s not kid ourselves, by now we know that data is gold and we hand it to these corporations without ever getting paid for it. One of the main reasons they can “incur losses” on co-pilot is not only future monopolization by market share but also by being provided endless amounts of golden data through usage. So yes, hosting “social git” with some fancy UI and CI and spinning up GPUs (they will constantly need to ramp up on anyways) is peanuts in comparison to the upside. Yes, open source developers as well as co-pilot users should get paid for their labour. Directly and by MSFT.

GH could be doing more but they are also hosting open source, and closed source, repositories for free.

omnimus 3y ago

Not exactly for free nowdays since they teach their AIs on the repos.

vasdae 3y ago
Yes, that's still exactly for free.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  Free doesn’t seem like a great name for situations in which profit is extracted from a user in a sort of nebulous fashion.
  - somsak2 3y ago
    you could say the same thing about ad based businesses. how else is the company supposed to cover its costs if it has a free service?
    - bee_rider 3y ago
      They aren’t free, they are ad funded. You pay for the service by viewing the ads. The only organizations that provide free services are, like, donation driven charities. Or hobbyist groups. Maybe somebody could argue for government funded organizations, but I don’t want to get into that whole can of worms.

phpisthebest 3y ago

[flagged]

Zambyte 3y ago
> anyone using github free account is the product. Also people who pay for their GitHub account.
itsoktocry 3y ago
>The folly here is you believe MS does this because they want to support open source...In reality they get a TON of value from this "free" service What is the difference? Nobody supports open source for the sake of it, we support it because we get tons of value from the "free" service. It sounds like incentives are properly aligned.
- cs02rm0 3y ago
  Between a free service for gain and charity?
bippihippi1 3y ago
another common folly is thinking that paying puts you in a special tier. free stuff is solely funded by the value of data, ofc there are exceptions funded by donated money and hard work. The things that are made to make money though, don't suddenly stop using the value of your data because you pay for them.
Karunamon 3y ago
Github has no lock in.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  Sure it does, all the tooling around git that many people associate with git. Issues, Wiki, Automation (Github Actions) etc
  - Karunamon 3y ago
    https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2023/07/11/github-to-gitlab-migration-made-easy/ https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2023/07/11/github-to-gitlab-mi... The capability has existed to ingest all of that information (minus actions, there is no standard for that) for a long time. I stand by what I said. That isn't lock in.

musha68k 3y ago

Yes, perfect training grounds for your future “solo-pilot coding agent”. Let’s not kid ourselves, by now we know that data is gold and we hand it to these corporations without ever getting paid for it. One of the main reasons they can “incur losses” on co-pilot is not only future monopolization by market share but also by being provided endless amounts of golden data through usage. So yes, hosting “social git” with some fancy UI and CI and spinning up GPUs (they will constantly need to ramp up on anyways) is peanuts in comparison to the upside. Yes, open source developers as well as co-pilot users should get paid for their labour. Directly and by MSFT.