3 ms·

That name would really fit a retro computing port for classic Mac. Given that the last few major releases of classic Mac OS were 7, 8 and 9. I glanced at the ti

That name would really fit a retro computing port for classic Mac. Given that the last few major releases of classic Mac OS were 7, 8 and 9. I glanced at the title and thought it could be that... Getting old I guess. Edit: wow, I looked at the repo and there is no source, just points at a release download. I would call that straight up abuse of GitHub.

akshaykalose 2y ago
Hmm... I get where you're coming from. But, I'm currently hosting a 2.5MB .dmg file and a 1.6MB video. I wouldn't call that abusing GitHub. I could probably host these files on any free provider (ex. Cloudflare Pages, ...) GitHub provides free private repos and also 1GB free LFS file hosting. I also have another open source repo with several releases at ~40MB per release. If the repo starts to get really large, then yes, I should host it somewhere else. But, putting it into perspective, I just released an initial MVP, and the repo size is less than 5MB in total.
jazzyjackson 2y ago
> I would call that straight up abuse of GitHub. This is really inflammatory. GitHub explicitly allows publishing release artifacts without source - if GitHub considered this abuse they could make it so compilation had to occur as a github action such that the artifact is guaranteed to be compiled from the source as it exists within the repo. As it is users can push any old binary up and claim that it was built with the code in the repo. https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/releasing-projects-on-github/about-releases https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/releasing-projects-o...
- theamk 2y ago
  It's a social convention, not an enforced rule - if one sees a github link, the expectation it's an open source project, or at least source-available. Having closed source project hosted there breaks this expectation.
  - asveikau 2y ago
    If you're working in a private repo for your closed source company or whatever then fine. Maybe also you pay GitHub for that. If the repo is public, it's highly suspicious that you're serving malware. Even if not, it doesn't match a sensible git workflow. You wouldn't run a private repo with a README and no source code with some binary links. That's not a sensible way to do any project, open or not.

akshaykalose 2y ago

Hmm... I get where you're coming from. But, I'm currently hosting a 2.5MB .dmg file and a 1.6MB video. I wouldn't call that abusing GitHub. I could probably host these files on any free provider (ex. Cloudflare Pages, ...) GitHub provides free private repos and also 1GB free LFS file hosting. I also have another open source repo with several releases at ~40MB per release. If the repo starts to get really large, then yes, I should host it somewhere else. But, putting it into perspective, I just released an initial MVP, and the repo size is less than 5MB in total.

jazzyjackson 2y ago

> I would call that straight up abuse of GitHub. This is really inflammatory. GitHub explicitly allows publishing release artifacts without source - if GitHub considered this abuse they could make it so compilation had to occur as a github action such that the artifact is guaranteed to be compiled from the source as it exists within the repo. As it is users can push any old binary up and claim that it was built with the code in the repo. https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/releasing-projects-on-github/about-releases https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/releasing-projects-o...

theamk 2y ago
It's a social convention, not an enforced rule - if one sees a github link, the expectation it's an open source project, or at least source-available. Having closed source project hosted there breaks this expectation.
- asveikau 2y ago
  If you're working in a private repo for your closed source company or whatever then fine. Maybe also you pay GitHub for that. If the repo is public, it's highly suspicious that you're serving malware. Even if not, it doesn't match a sensible git workflow. You wouldn't run a private repo with a README and no source code with some binary links. That's not a sensible way to do any project, open or not.