4 ms·

Sounds like uploading a zip to the releases page of the GitHub page, and linking it from the readme would be a good way to fix this. Then you have something clo

Sounds like uploading a zip to the releases page of the GitHub page, and linking it from the readme would be a good way to fix this. Then you have something close to the original that OP wants, and also have the git repo that people can clone and fork and experiment with.

AshamedCaptain 2y ago
I just find it ridiculous that a "Github" git repo would be easier to experiment with than a zip file. They have not imported any history, so git brings zero benefits. And they're not going to accept commits nor issue reports, so github doesnt bring that much more either. But this is Microsoft, so they'll feed you Github even when it just makes things more difficult.
- novos 2y ago
  It does make it easily browsable and linkable on the web. So you can't say it has no benefits.
- derefr 2y ago
  > I just find it ridiculous that a "Github" git repo would be easier to experiment with than a zip file. I don't know if experimentation was the point, per se. Putting the files in a Github repo, at least puts the files on the web — where they're readable and linkable and syntax-highlit and internally searchable and web-spider indexable and Github-BigQuery-dataset-legible. I can read source code in a Github repo on my phone on the bus (and I sometimes do! In anger, in upstream repos when trying to debug sudden production issues while on my way home!) I can't really read code in a zip file until I get home to my laptop.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
    > I can read source code in a Github repo on my phone on the bus (and I sometimes do! In anger, in upstream repos when trying to debug sudden production issues while on my way home!) I can't really read code in a zip file on my phone. I find this double ironic, because _every single phone_ I've ever had since the 90s has had no problem being able to download, unzip and view plain text files. Yet not a single phone I've ever had is able to decently browse the JS-loaded monster of a website that github.com is. Not even the one I'm using right now. Even on my desktop it still much easier to view a plain text file, not to mention more responsive and reflowable, than the Github website.
    - Zambyte 2y ago
      Ok I'll bite, what kind of phone do you have? I have a phone from 6 years ago and I use the GitHub web UI on it almost daily. It's far from great but it certainly is usable.
      - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
        Why it would be more troubling a phone that can't browse Github.com than a phone that can't open plain text files on a sub-megabyte .zip file as derefr apparently has ? Github.com frontpage itself is already several megabytes. By your own text your 6 year old phone (more than capable) "is far from great". That's the point... My phone can checkout this repository (or unzip the corresponding .zip file), and even under emulation layer build MS-DOS from it. Browsing Github.com is on the other hand a struggle. But it should be obvious; there is _no way_ browsing plain text files wouldn't be more far more responsive and pleasant than browsing such a loaded website. Github is just a disservice here.
        Zambyte 2y ago
        > By your own text your 6 year old phone (more than capable) "is far from great". It's mostly far from great for design reasons than for performance reasons. I barely tolerate GitHub on my powerhouse of a desktop (I don't use it for any personal projects). If you want to download the repository to browse it locally, go for it. Still curious what kind of phone you have since you didn't answer that, and I still browse GitHub (reading issues, discussions, and some code) daily on my 6 year old phone.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Zambyte 2y ago
  I also found it confusing that they are doing version control via version numbered directories instead of using the version control system and tagging versions. If they don't think that's discoverable enough using the web UI... they should probably make it discoverable enough using the web UI.
  - mynameisvlad 2y ago
    Or they are trying to create point in time backups of disparate code bases that most certainly did not come from the same place and therefore have no notion of history. Using tags/branches does nothing but separate the versions needlessly.
    - Zambyte 2y ago
      Really they should just be separate repositories (because as you say, they are independent code bases), but I think if you want to force them to be in the same repository, they should at least be on different commits that are tagged instead of what they're currently doing. Whether or not you decide to base the commits on each other is something else that can be considered. If you really don't want the commits to be based on each other, you can just make new orphan branches.
1970-01-01 2y ago
If this is going to occur on a regular basis, we will eventually run into copy protection mechanisms, which are also worth preserving. A bit-for-bit copy, uploaded to something like museum.github.com would be a much better archival record. https://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/2015/11/ibm-pc-floppy-disks-deeper-look-at-disk.html https://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/2015/11/ibm-pc-floppy-d...

AshamedCaptain 2y ago

I just find it ridiculous that a "Github" git repo would be easier to experiment with than a zip file. They have not imported any history, so git brings zero benefits. And they're not going to accept commits nor issue reports, so github doesnt bring that much more either. But this is Microsoft, so they'll feed you Github even when it just makes things more difficult.

novos 2y ago
It does make it easily browsable and linkable on the web. So you can't say it has no benefits.
derefr 2y ago
> I just find it ridiculous that a "Github" git repo would be easier to experiment with than a zip file. I don't know if experimentation was the point, per se. Putting the files in a Github repo, at least puts the files on the web — where they're readable and linkable and syntax-highlit and internally searchable and web-spider indexable and Github-BigQuery-dataset-legible. I can read source code in a Github repo on my phone on the bus (and I sometimes do! In anger, in upstream repos when trying to debug sudden production issues while on my way home!) I can't really read code in a zip file until I get home to my laptop.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- AshamedCaptain 2y ago
  > I can read source code in a Github repo on my phone on the bus (and I sometimes do! In anger, in upstream repos when trying to debug sudden production issues while on my way home!) I can't really read code in a zip file on my phone. I find this double ironic, because _every single phone_ I've ever had since the 90s has had no problem being able to download, unzip and view plain text files. Yet not a single phone I've ever had is able to decently browse the JS-loaded monster of a website that github.com is. Not even the one I'm using right now. Even on my desktop it still much easier to view a plain text file, not to mention more responsive and reflowable, than the Github website.
  - Zambyte 2y ago
    Ok I'll bite, what kind of phone do you have? I have a phone from 6 years ago and I use the GitHub web UI on it almost daily. It's far from great but it certainly is usable.
    - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
      Why it would be more troubling a phone that can't browse Github.com than a phone that can't open plain text files on a sub-megabyte .zip file as derefr apparently has ? Github.com frontpage itself is already several megabytes. By your own text your 6 year old phone (more than capable) "is far from great". That's the point... My phone can checkout this repository (or unzip the corresponding .zip file), and even under emulation layer build MS-DOS from it. Browsing Github.com is on the other hand a struggle. But it should be obvious; there is _no way_ browsing plain text files wouldn't be more far more responsive and pleasant than browsing such a loaded website. Github is just a disservice here.
      - Zambyte 2y ago
        > By your own text your 6 year old phone (more than capable) "is far from great". It's mostly far from great for design reasons than for performance reasons. I barely tolerate GitHub on my powerhouse of a desktop (I don't use it for any personal projects). If you want to download the repository to browse it locally, go for it. Still curious what kind of phone you have since you didn't answer that, and I still browse GitHub (reading issues, discussions, and some code) daily on my 6 year old phone.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Zambyte 2y ago
I also found it confusing that they are doing version control via version numbered directories instead of using the version control system and tagging versions. If they don't think that's discoverable enough using the web UI... they should probably make it discoverable enough using the web UI.
- mynameisvlad 2y ago
  Or they are trying to create point in time backups of disparate code bases that most certainly did not come from the same place and therefore have no notion of history. Using tags/branches does nothing but separate the versions needlessly.
  - Zambyte 2y ago
    Really they should just be separate repositories (because as you say, they are independent code bases), but I think if you want to force them to be in the same repository, they should at least be on different commits that are tagged instead of what they're currently doing. Whether or not you decide to base the commits on each other is something else that can be considered. If you really don't want the commits to be based on each other, you can just make new orphan branches.

1970-01-01 2y ago

If this is going to occur on a regular basis, we will eventually run into copy protection mechanisms, which are also worth preserving. A bit-for-bit copy, uploaded to something like museum.github.com would be a much better archival record. https://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/2015/11/ibm-pc-floppy-disks-deeper-look-at-disk.html https://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/2015/11/ibm-pc-floppy-d...