4 ms·

It's a service designed around a free and open protocol, the other examples are binary software packages. You can use any local git repository as a drop-in repl

by Udo 13y ago

It's a service designed around a free and open protocol, the other examples are binary software packages. You can use any local git repository as a drop-in replacement. Github is neither a dependency nor a walled garden for most people, but the other software on that list definitely is. Git is the tool people use, Github is just a public repository. There is no question that Github is itself closed source, but it doesn't really share key attributes with the other examples mentioned either.

zanny 13y ago
People are getting very dependent on Github workflows beyond just the act of being a git repository. If all you need is a remote git repo, use gitorious, it is open source. No, people use github for the social features, the wiki, the issue tracker, comments, etc. These features are not portable, and as a result if github went down, your entire workflow suffers.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  Every single bit of which can be replaced with Gitlab, and in some cases, Gitlab has more and better features.
jm3 13y ago
His point was that people could use bare git without github, but many use Github, which isn't free according to three of the four freedoms RMS lists in the essay [1], no matter how much we hackers might love it. Lots of people love Excel, too, but that doesn't make it free software. [1] Github: (0) freedom to run the program as you wish - YUP (1) freedom to study & change the source - NOPE (2) freedom to make and distribute exact copies - NOT SO MUCH (3) freedom to make and distribute copies of your modified versions - NO
- dinkumthinkum 13y ago
  Sure, and I can eat Ramen noodles instead prime rib but I don't see how that's relevant. Github provides a service: hosting, a "community," etc. This isn't the same kind tyranny as presumably binary distributed software. Right? That should be obvious, unless I am losing my mind.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    In what respect do you have more control with a service than with a binary?
  - rcxdude 13y ago
    It's actually worse: you don't heave the freedom to use old versions when they push out an update, and you may lose access to it completely for any number of reasons, including 'we don't like you'. Granted, part of this lack of freedom is fair due to hosted services being different from just plain software, but the power over the users are there nonetheless.
    - dinkumthinkum 13y ago
      Again, and I mean this in a nice way, how are your complaints remotely relevant? I'm really trying to understand...? So if someone builds me a house and I pay them ... Is it immoral for them to have built the house without being some kind indentured servant to me for the rest of their lives doing whatever I want for whatever reason ... That seems like a weird thing to say, but what you're saying is just as silly. Should I have access to unlimited resources from this builder and if they do not consent to my demands then they tyrants? It's a service that I pay for and I have agreed to conditions of said service and I can choose to stop paying if I am not happy or I can sue if I feel the terms have not been met. I don't see the problem but I do see clearly the alternative is charity. Someone else responded, a user jszz on this thread and said something crazy about Germany and how we need become a self-sufficient commune. I'm not sure what it meant and I'm not sure that anyone that holds this view knows what they mean. =(
      - emiliobumachar 13y ago
        In this analogy, they don't give you the blueprints for the house, and it's not available upon request. Wanna drill a hole in the wall to hang a picture? Better hire the same contractor or risk drilling into pipes or wires. Is the contractor no longer in the market? Well, tough luck! Github provides an amazing service, but it's closed source SaaS.
- EGreg 13y ago
  Ummm why can't you just install your own git, wiki, etc from open source if you desire?
roel_v 13y ago
Ah yes, the 'I like these people's marketing, they must be good' method of lulling one's cognitive dissonance to sleep.

by Udo 13y ago

zanny 13y ago

People are getting very dependent on Github workflows beyond just the act of being a git repository. If all you need is a remote git repo, use gitorious, it is open source. No, people use github for the social features, the wiki, the issue tracker, comments, etc. These features are not portable, and as a result if github went down, your entire workflow suffers.

Karunamon 13y ago
Every single bit of which can be replaced with Gitlab, and in some cases, Gitlab has more and better features.

jm3 13y ago

His point was that people could use bare git without github, but many use Github, which isn't free according to three of the four freedoms RMS lists in the essay [1], no matter how much we hackers might love it. Lots of people love Excel, too, but that doesn't make it free software. [1] Github: (0) freedom to run the program as you wish - YUP (1) freedom to study & change the source - NOPE (2) freedom to make and distribute exact copies - NOT SO MUCH (3) freedom to make and distribute copies of your modified versions - NO

dinkumthinkum 13y ago
Sure, and I can eat Ramen noodles instead prime rib but I don't see how that's relevant. Github provides a service: hosting, a "community," etc. This isn't the same kind tyranny as presumably binary distributed software. Right? That should be obvious, unless I am losing my mind.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  In what respect do you have more control with a service than with a binary?
- rcxdude 13y ago
  It's actually worse: you don't heave the freedom to use old versions when they push out an update, and you may lose access to it completely for any number of reasons, including 'we don't like you'. Granted, part of this lack of freedom is fair due to hosted services being different from just plain software, but the power over the users are there nonetheless.
  - dinkumthinkum 13y ago
    Again, and I mean this in a nice way, how are your complaints remotely relevant? I'm really trying to understand...? So if someone builds me a house and I pay them ... Is it immoral for them to have built the house without being some kind indentured servant to me for the rest of their lives doing whatever I want for whatever reason ... That seems like a weird thing to say, but what you're saying is just as silly. Should I have access to unlimited resources from this builder and if they do not consent to my demands then they tyrants? It's a service that I pay for and I have agreed to conditions of said service and I can choose to stop paying if I am not happy or I can sue if I feel the terms have not been met. I don't see the problem but I do see clearly the alternative is charity. Someone else responded, a user jszz on this thread and said something crazy about Germany and how we need become a self-sufficient commune. I'm not sure what it meant and I'm not sure that anyone that holds this view knows what they mean. =(
    - emiliobumachar 13y ago
      In this analogy, they don't give you the blueprints for the house, and it's not available upon request. Wanna drill a hole in the wall to hang a picture? Better hire the same contractor or risk drilling into pipes or wires. Is the contractor no longer in the market? Well, tough luck! Github provides an amazing service, but it's closed source SaaS.
EGreg 13y ago
Ummm why can't you just install your own git, wiki, etc from open source if you desire?

roel_v 13y ago

Ah yes, the 'I like these people's marketing, they must be good' method of lulling one's cognitive dissonance to sleep.