4 ms·
Even though all of this should be perfectly legal and follows TOS, GitHub really isn’t the place to host anything possibly damaging to or annoying big tech. Yo
by _lvbh 2y ago
Even though all of this should be perfectly legal and follows TOS, GitHub really isn’t the place to host anything possibly damaging to or annoying big tech.
You can add push URLs to your origin branch such that `git push` automatically mirrors your code on multiple remotes: `git remote set-url --add --push origin git://another/repo.git`. If you maintain an open source repository, I would encourage you to have mirrors across gitlab, codeberg, and/or a self hosted gitea instance.
- Wowfunhappy 2y agoI'm certainly not against mirrors. But— > GitHub really isn’t the place to host anything possibly damaging to or annoying big tech. Why would Google give a crap if a handful of people futzing around with ancient versions of Windows and macOS want to run up-to-date Chromium browsers? If you wanted to be super conspiratorial, you could point to Supermium's statement[1] that they plan to retain Manifest V2 support. But that merely puts them in the same category as Brave and Firefox. At the same time, I don't know how else to explain what is going on! --- 1: https://win32subsystem.live/supermium/#:~:text=Manifest%20V2%20is%20NOT%20slated%20for%20removal%20from%20Supermium%20browser https://win32subsystem.live/supermium/#:~:text=Manifest%20V2....
- cyanydeez 2y agoConspiracy hat: Google is fighting ad blockers via the new v3 manifest to keep the YouTube milk cow going. They will soon be rejecting v2 plugins and probably expect some flight to chromium.
- lxgr 2y agoMaybe take the hat off for a minute and consider how they'd possibly retroactively revoke the (non-revokable) open source licenses that all Chromium versions published to date have been licensed under. Then ask yourself what the benefit of all that – already impossible – endeavor would be, given that Firefox also exists and isn't deprecating Manifest V2. Finally, ask yourself which actual paths Google could take to still eventually force MFv3 on most web users without resorting to any such drastic and publicly-visible measures. See? You didn't really need the hat!
- portaouflop 2y agothey don’t have to revoke the license, they just add this for new versions > what the benefit of all that endeavor would be Breaking all adblockers for good, ensuring revenue. Firefox has almost no marketshare so it’s more or less irrelevant. > which actual paths Google could take to still eventually force MFv3 Next steps are to break the web more and more for non-chromium browsers. Already many sites that don’t work well with FF/Safari. There will be reasonable reasons to do that (eg protect the kids) but the end result will be 1 browser dominance and ads tattooed into your eyeballs - mark my words!!1
- Wowfunhappy 2y ago> Next steps are to break the web more and more for non-chromium browsers What stops people from switching to Brave, or some light fork that's basically "Chromium + Manifest V2"? Google would need something akin to Web Attestation. And yes they did try that—so if you're going to put your conspiracy hat on I'd direct your attention there.
- cyanydeez 2y agoThe ecosystem for V2 plugins will die when Chrome no longer supports them. Stagnation is the plan, not fullfrontal assault. Programmers tend to want people using their products more than they want anything else.
- _lvbh 2y agoIm keen to believe this is a genuine mistake on either GitHub or Google’s end. Perhaps some automated system they’re testing out.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]