"foobar" <f...@bar.com> wrote in message news:cuucmsymdqnsrurlk...@forum.dlang.org... > On Tuesday, 15 May 2012 at 02:36:25 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "Kapps" <opantm2+s...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:gvuqhcqczjqmdtpsa...@forum.dlang.org... >>> It would be nice to make a replacement to dsource. There's a fair few >>> problems with it. For one, people prefer hosting their source on Github >>> or Bitbucket or such, it's silly to try and get people to use your own >>> source control hosting instead of just pointing to one of those. >> >> I firmly believe that GitHub/BitBucket/etc-style features need to be >> standard *protocols*, not features bundled inseparably to project >> hosting. >> What the hell is this, 1980 all over again where data is routinely tied >> inseparably to the software it originated from? >> >> It makes *no* sense for GitHub/BitBucket to be designed so that: >> >> 1. Forking/Pull requests/etc are all isolated from other project hosting >> providers (It's *DISTRIBUTED* fucking version control, for christsakes!), >> and >> >> 2. Interfaces [very, very VERY sloooow and half-broken ones] are tied to >> the >> project hosting site/software. >> >> It's like that twitface shit all over again (ie, all that "walled-off >> sub-internets" bullshit), or those god-awful "web photo-viewer" programs, >> but with programmers - exactly the people who *should know better*. This >> is >> 2012, there's *no* excuse for software design blunders that were already >> going out of date 30 fucking years ago. >> >> Of course, such anachronisms will never be reverted so long as the "cell >> and >> internet generation" is still around... >> > > There *is* such a protocol - it's called Git.
Right, I agree, but these days, Git (or Hg) is essentially only a half-VCS without such things. And Git and Hg don't have such things. > Sure it doesn't support pull requests but that's the base for > GitHub's business model - they make money by offering useful > extensions on top of their hosting plans. There is no blunder > here, it's all very deliberate for the purpose of making money. > There's no point on ranting about that. > I'm well aware that it's deliberate, but it's still anti-competetive, asinine and anachronistic. And it's not as if the whole hosting thing isn't worth anything. That is, after all, what they *do*. People have this bizarre idea that the pursuit of $$$ automatically excuses anything and everything. "WTF, that's terrible!" "No, it's ok: They're making $$$ off of it!" "Oh, ok then! If they're making $$$!" This is why OSS software will always be better (on average) than commercial: No managers to fuck things up.
