3 ms·

I have no issue using closed source software when they are doing nothing of intellectual value. Free software's very purpose is to ensure things of intellectual

I have no issue using closed source software when they are doing nothing of intellectual value. Free software's very purpose is to ensure things of intellectual value can be understood, and knowledge cannot be locked up. GitHub does not fall in this category to me. There is of course smart and interesting engineering behind it, but functionally speaking its only added value is to be faster, more wide spread, and better UX than others.

bbkane 2y ago
I mostly agree, but I also rely on GitHub Copilot, CI/CD, issues, pages, and storage (for releases). And that's just for my simple little side projects! While I'm grateful GitHub is such a great service and provides these for free, I also worry about my reliance on it. Some languages (Rust for example) also rely on GitHub for package management (I think just for auth though).
frou_dh 2y ago
I think of this kind of thing as related to Lock-In. If some proprietary thing I use were to go away permanently, would that be a (perhaps significant) inconvenience, or would it be a disaster? If the former then there's not really lock-in and its more a "make hay while the sun shines" situation.
remram 2y ago
So you mean "GitHub does fall in this category" of "doing nothing of intellectual value"?
pessimizer 2y ago
> Free software's very purpose is to ensure things of intellectual value can be understood, and knowledge cannot be locked up. I've never heard this before. I was operating under the assumption that Free software was to keep us from being enslaved by the products we use, not that it was some kind of intellectual edification for people who enjoy coding. I actually don't care the tiniest bit about whether coders have sufficient intellectual stimulation, so it's weird that I care about Free software.
- thecrash 2y ago
  It's both. Free software is a more efficient mode of production because it maximizes the exchange of ideas about how best to build software. It's also a more libertarian mode of consumption because it maximizes freedom of choice for users.
ssivark 2y ago
It’s a third party platform which can de-platform you at the drop of a hat and cause a big headache. Enough people are worried about that and the broader implications of a platform not governed according to the fundamental principles/values of free software. So I can understand why they advocate for the free software ecosystem to steer clear. “Intellectual value” is a somewhat arbitrary criterion.
- Galanwe 2y ago
  > It’s a third party platform which can de-platform you at the drop of a hat Yeah right but that's life. Your argument is basically "someone could stop willing to do business with me so they should give me the means to be independent of them". That's not a valid reason, that's being unreasonable. > cause a big headache My very argument is that a "headache" is not enough. An "impossibility", or "an incredible effort" are reasons to worry. Switching to an other platform and having less cool UI and rewrite CI is definitely not a show stopper. > “Intellectual value” is a somewhat arbitrary criterion. What value is there in GitHub apart from their infrastructure, which is of no use to anyone unless you are willing to scale to their level, in which case you're just willing to build a competitor, which I have no issue for them to not give you the tools to do?
  - ssivark 2y ago
    > Yeah right but that's life. Oh, most definitely. So you gotta do what you gotta do. > Your argument is basically "someone could stop willing to do business with me so they should give me the means to be independent of them". That's not a valid reason, that's being unreasonable. On the contrary, we use that general principle every day when making decisions. For example, these aspects could be even more starkly highlighted when you make decisions as a business owner -- because the buck stops with you, and many other people might be depending on you. So you really don't want to back yourself into a corner. We focus first on the biggest risks, and then move down the list. And the specific probabilities and costs we assign to each dependence might be different based on our cultural background and life experience. YMMV.

bbkane 2y ago

I mostly agree, but I also rely on GitHub Copilot, CI/CD, issues, pages, and storage (for releases). And that's just for my simple little side projects! While I'm grateful GitHub is such a great service and provides these for free, I also worry about my reliance on it. Some languages (Rust for example) also rely on GitHub for package management (I think just for auth though).

frou_dh 2y ago

I think of this kind of thing as related to Lock-In. If some proprietary thing I use were to go away permanently, would that be a (perhaps significant) inconvenience, or would it be a disaster? If the former then there's not really lock-in and its more a "make hay while the sun shines" situation.

remram 2y ago

So you mean "GitHub does fall in this category" of "doing nothing of intellectual value"?

pessimizer 2y ago

> Free software's very purpose is to ensure things of intellectual value can be understood, and knowledge cannot be locked up. I've never heard this before. I was operating under the assumption that Free software was to keep us from being enslaved by the products we use, not that it was some kind of intellectual edification for people who enjoy coding. I actually don't care the tiniest bit about whether coders have sufficient intellectual stimulation, so it's weird that I care about Free software.

thecrash 2y ago
It's both. Free software is a more efficient mode of production because it maximizes the exchange of ideas about how best to build software. It's also a more libertarian mode of consumption because it maximizes freedom of choice for users.

ssivark 2y ago

It’s a third party platform which can de-platform you at the drop of a hat and cause a big headache. Enough people are worried about that and the broader implications of a platform not governed according to the fundamental principles/values of free software. So I can understand why they advocate for the free software ecosystem to steer clear. “Intellectual value” is a somewhat arbitrary criterion.

Galanwe 2y ago
> It’s a third party platform which can de-platform you at the drop of a hat Yeah right but that's life. Your argument is basically "someone could stop willing to do business with me so they should give me the means to be independent of them". That's not a valid reason, that's being unreasonable. > cause a big headache My very argument is that a "headache" is not enough. An "impossibility", or "an incredible effort" are reasons to worry. Switching to an other platform and having less cool UI and rewrite CI is definitely not a show stopper. > “Intellectual value” is a somewhat arbitrary criterion. What value is there in GitHub apart from their infrastructure, which is of no use to anyone unless you are willing to scale to their level, in which case you're just willing to build a competitor, which I have no issue for them to not give you the tools to do?
- ssivark 2y ago
  > Yeah right but that's life. Oh, most definitely. So you gotta do what you gotta do. > Your argument is basically "someone could stop willing to do business with me so they should give me the means to be independent of them". That's not a valid reason, that's being unreasonable. On the contrary, we use that general principle every day when making decisions. For example, these aspects could be even more starkly highlighted when you make decisions as a business owner -- because the buck stops with you, and many other people might be depending on you. So you really don't want to back yourself into a corner. We focus first on the biggest risks, and then move down the list. And the specific probabilities and costs we assign to each dependence might be different based on our cultural background and life experience. YMMV.