4 ms·
The biggest contributor to open-source are companies like IBM. Calling IBM communist, is well weird. If you remove extremists of each movements, seeing value i
by gutnor 13y ago
The biggest contributor to open-source are companies like IBM. Calling IBM communist, is well weird.
If you remove extremists of each movements, seeing value in common-good has nothing to do with communism or socialism or capitalism.
The only filter you apply by looking at github is social. You select individual based on how involved they are in a community. If your company evolve in the same community that can be beneficial. If not, well it is only slightly a bit more relevant than looking at hiring a plumber based on how recognised he is in the car modding community.
- burntsushi 13y agoI disagree. If you want to review a candidate's code, GitHub is one of many useful tools to do so. Having code on GitHub does not require one to participate in its social features. If GitHub lets you verify that someone is capable of writing code that you think is of high quality, is that not a useful tool to apply in a wide variety of circumstances?
- gutnor 13y agoThe point of the article was looking at influencial people in GitHub, the ones for which an automated resume even make sense. Now indeed, you can also look at the code that even regular people are producing. The problem here is that you filter people that uses GitHub as a code repository, storing learning material (i.e. rubbish), quick hack (i.e. dirty, no tests), ..., or people that use GitHub as a code portfolio with a selection of their best piece of code. But really, whatever works for you. There was the same talk about LinkedIn first, then StackOverflow accounts back in the days and nowadays hardly anybody cares.
- burntsushi 13y agoI was responding to this claim you made: "The only filter you apply by looking at github is social".