4 ms·
Can't tell if this comment is sarcastic, but that's exactly what git is: Every clone of the repo is independent, and acts as a full backup. Likewise, a local re
by blauditore 3y ago
Can't tell if this comment is sarcastic, but that's exactly what git is: Every clone of the repo is independent, and acts as a full backup. Likewise, a local repo can be pushed to various remotes, there is no inherent strong server-client coupling (even though it's often used in such a way).
- chaxor 3y agoYes but not having to specify every single user who pulls the git repo from GitHub by IP address as an additional remote is a huge win no? If "ipfs" can be added as a remote, and it automatically pulls from thousands of different devices without having to specify them, that's a pretty big win for redundancy right?
- blauditore 3y agoNot sure what's the big benefit here, backups? Otherwise, the more devs a repo has, the more redundancy exists anyway, if that's your main concern.
- chaxor 3y agoIt becomes far more useful for making very large files generated from code (e.g. NN weights) easily downloadable without having to pay huge sums to storage providers ($600 to AWS for arxiv.org for example) - with IPFS it's completely FREE, because everyone with the file is using it and hosting it. Additionally capabilities can be added in a Makefile form to use IPFS as the cache to ensure that a script that takes 3 months on a HPC/supercomputer to make a 3MB file only has to grab the file in a few seconds, even if not yet computed locally (e.g. you just computed it at work and do `git pull && ipfsmake`).