I know this particular one is a minor thing, but they add up, over time...
Please consider approaches that are open, rather than owned, and try not to increase lock-in by big-business plays.
It's pragmatic to keep using GitHub in limited ways right now, *but* part of that is being judicious about creeping lock-in, which is a pattern we've seen for decades (and the current owner of GitHub has been one of the most epic abusers).
To use GitHub as an example, though this is not specific to them: They are not your friend. They used to seem like your friend, but that friendship was worth fewer than 7.5 billion dollars.
When you effectively partner with such a company, approach it as an temporary alliance, limit their power over you, and keep trying to increase your options/freedom.
Also, consider what you're promoting, especially to impressionable students around Racket. Every use is effectively you endorsing something questionable.
Maybe it's time to poke the Conservancy. It should be on their radar by now, and some of the solution applies to all projects.
(I suggested wait&see on moving the repos from GitHub, partly since it's unclear which competitors will sell out next for GitHub/Slack/etc.-type lock-in billions. And I don't have time to see which non-profit ones are just an old PC under someone's dorm bed, and will disappear as soon as that person gets a job. The Conservancy is in a better position to investigate, and to audit/fund to make sure whatever project has sustainable funding. In the meantime, that doesn't mean we have to keep increasing our non-repo feature dependence, and make it harder to move once we have a chance.)
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/0b7d6ef3-d47a-f629-c893-5244b4a635d4%40neilvandyke.org.
