On Friday, 5 September 2014 at 12:24:02 UTC, Nameless wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 07:20:15 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Monday, 1 September 2014 at 22:52:46 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 8/30/2014 7:37 AM, Dicebot wrote:
GitHub is an intrusive closed ecosystem and it is legitimate
concern for anyone caring about the open internet.
How so? The github repositories are mirrored on my machine as
git repositories.
git != GitHub
While you may still clone the repository there is no way to
use any of advanced / social features without creating GitHub
account and those features are exactly why it gets used. With
no support for anonymous / openID input it creates situation
where you have to chose - go with competitors and lose notable
amount of community attention or stay with GitHub even if
actual technological features provided are sub-par. In the end
it encourages harmful attitude "there is nothing outside the
GitHub" which of course benefits its owners much more than any
actual technological advantage.
It is nothing unique for GitHUb I can blame them for though -
this is how absolute majority of web services is built these
days and I don't see it changing without any government
regulations. Does mean I must like it.
Government control would just mean controlled by corruption.
The solution needs to be technological: a distributed github. I
have no idea how to do that but I'm sure it's possible. Until
something like that gets implemented, it seems to me that
"github or GO" (without the "TF" and with a rationale) is the
best option. It won't scale to force core contributors to
collect patches from services x, y and z.
Also, I can't imagine anything more "X or GTFO!!!!" than
government control / state coercion.
