4 ms·

Yes, but they work differently. Due to their decentralised nature there is not one switch they can turn to shut off their services or programmes. US companies c

Yes, but they work differently. Due to their decentralised nature there is not one switch they can turn to shut off their services or programmes. US companies can be ordered to stop their services for certain organisations, individuals or states

pjmlp 1y ago
See how well it works for countries that were cutted out of Github, where most FOSS projects are hosted nowadays, without copies anywhere else, as if Git wasn't any different from Subversion.
- number6 1y ago
  Yes - this is exactly the problem. Big Corporations, like Microsoft, the owner of Github, can shut you out. If you lose access to your E-Mail, or anything connected with your Microsoft Account (or Google Account) you will lose access to a lot of services that relie on it. And if you keep your source code with Microsoft and Microsoft only, you can lose access to it too.
  - hopelite 1y ago
    Broadly speaking this tendency towards concentration and centralization is not only just going on in all aspects of society all over the West, more baffling in many ways is the fact that many of the instances of concentrating power and control is being facilitated and even perpetrated by the collective people themselves, e.g., putting all the eggs into the GitHub basket. Regardless of why and how it’s happening, it seems extremely risky at best because all concentration of power and control tends to beget more abusive power and control.
- preisschild 1y ago
  Git is distributed. There are git mirrors everywhere and if you pulled the source code once locally you also still have it.
- insane_dreamer 1y ago
  The problem isn't git -- which is open source -- but Github, which is Microsoft. There are other open options for hosting git FOSS projects.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  When you use a project, with Git you always have a copy (by default). Also when you have the legal access to the binaries, you can demand the sources. I mean that's THE defining feature of being an open source project.
cromka 1y ago
Sure, but then some may not remember how usage of the cryptographic algorithms was limited by the US government, including in Open Source software, all the way until late 90s in Central/East Europe.

pjmlp 1y ago

See how well it works for countries that were cutted out of Github, where most FOSS projects are hosted nowadays, without copies anywhere else, as if Git wasn't any different from Subversion.

number6 1y ago
Yes - this is exactly the problem. Big Corporations, like Microsoft, the owner of Github, can shut you out. If you lose access to your E-Mail, or anything connected with your Microsoft Account (or Google Account) you will lose access to a lot of services that relie on it. And if you keep your source code with Microsoft and Microsoft only, you can lose access to it too.
- hopelite 1y ago
  Broadly speaking this tendency towards concentration and centralization is not only just going on in all aspects of society all over the West, more baffling in many ways is the fact that many of the instances of concentrating power and control is being facilitated and even perpetrated by the collective people themselves, e.g., putting all the eggs into the GitHub basket. Regardless of why and how it’s happening, it seems extremely risky at best because all concentration of power and control tends to beget more abusive power and control.
preisschild 1y ago
Git is distributed. There are git mirrors everywhere and if you pulled the source code once locally you also still have it.
insane_dreamer 1y ago
The problem isn't git -- which is open source -- but Github, which is Microsoft. There are other open options for hosting git FOSS projects.
1718627440 1y ago
When you use a project, with Git you always have a copy (by default). Also when you have the legal access to the binaries, you can demand the sources. I mean that's THE defining feature of being an open source project.

cromka 1y ago

Sure, but then some may not remember how usage of the cryptographic algorithms was limited by the US government, including in Open Source software, all the way until late 90s in Central/East Europe.