Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why GitHub Can't Host the Linux Kernel Community

blog.ffwll.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 251 posts

Re: Why GitHub Can't Host the Linux Kernel Community

#161

Post by nickbauman »

dlp211 wrote: post #156
gnaritas wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kernel development shouldn't have a low bar, it should have a very very high one. Anyone that finds email a high bar for communication doesn't belong in Kernel development.

This is gate keeping at its finest. Email is a clunky tool to do development with compared with what is available. A persons willingness to use email (and all the quirks for submitting a patch) for patching the kernel has nothing to do with the quality of code that they write.

So clunky! :D — With 2000 commits per day, I don't think they need more people. I can't even imagine trying to fit that amount of source code change into any management style, let alone one that has little or no gatekeeping. Making the barrier to entry higher is probably only one step to prevent the project from self-immolation.

Re: Why GitHub Can't Host the Linux Kernel Community

#162

Post by dajt »

[deleted] wrote: post #132

[deleted]

I think you're right. And if so I agree with Linus. I don't get the entitlement of OSS people. They want to play in someone else's sandpit but enforce their own rules. If you don't like the way the project is run then fork it, go make your own or find another one.

Re: Why GitHub Can't Host the Linux Kernel Community

#163

Post by nickbauman »

KekDemaga wrote: post #97
shp0ngle wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like open source projects are immortal. Some die due to poor management, lost developer interest, lost funding, or some fork becoming more popular. Or all of the above.

For me Linux is the core of the open source movement. If it dies the rest of it might die with it.

If Linux dies, it will either be because something better emerged to replace it (yay!) or the civilization necessary to support it imploded (boo!)

Re: Why GitHub Can't Host the Linux Kernel Community

#164

Post by bsder »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #100
snakeanus wrote: post #55

I can't really see the obsession that everyone has with centralised and closed services like github. We need to start moving away from them, not move more projects to them. Mailing lists and NNTP make decentralisation quite easy while being open standards and without having the need to have any account in any centralised service, why drop all these features away?

> We need to start moving away from them, not move more projects to them. It seems this topic comes up quite frequently on HN. Unfortunately, while it sounds great in theory, no one ever has a practical way of doing this. The main problem here is the user experience. When using GitHub I can find an open source project, copy the URL, pull it down, make changes, push and click a button for a pull request. A little bit…

> Now try decentralizing away from GitHub. If you have to add any steps then you increase friction likely lowering the UX and making adoption harder.

Attempting to justify GitHub as a "win" because git is unwilling to fix its brain-damaged user interface is called "damning with faint praise", at best.

Re: Why GitHub Can't Host the Linux Kernel Community

#165

Post by retox »

__jal wrote: post #32
jacquesm wrote: post #11

I'm fine with that. Github is 'too large to fail' already, adding the Linux kernel to the pile and forcing the kernel team into Github's workflow are two big negatives. It would be great for Github but bad for everybody else.

Seriously. Linux will likely outlive GH[1], and more importantly, it doesn't need GH. The current workflow works fine, and I hardly think any potential kernel hackers are choosing not to work on the kernel because it is email-driven. [1] Nothing against them that I don't have with any other commons that depends on corporate beneficence. But companies fail all the time; I can't think of a reason GH is immune.

I wonder if the email list acts as a gateway to filter potential troublemakers and trolls. A troll denied their audience is a troll defeated.

Re: Why GitHub Can't Host the Linux Kernel Community

#166

Post by ajdlinux »

retox wrote: post #165
__jal wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously. Linux will likely outlive GH[1], and more importantly, it doesn't need GH. The current workflow works fine, and I hardly think any potential kernel hackers are choosing not to work on the kernel because it is email-driven. [1] Nothing against them that I don't have with any other commons that depends on corporate beneficence. But companies fail all the time; I can't think of a reason GH is immune.

I wonder if the email list acts as a gateway to filter potential troublemakers and trolls. A troll denied their audience is a troll defeated.

The kernel lists get plenty of trolls regardless.

Re: Why GitHub Can't Host the Linux Kernel Community

#167

Post by gnaritas »

dlp211 wrote: post #156
gnaritas wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kernel development shouldn't have a low bar, it should have a very very high one. Anyone that finds email a high bar for communication doesn't belong in Kernel development.

This is gate keeping at its finest. Email is a clunky tool to do development with compared with what is available. A persons willingness to use email (and all the quirks for submitting a patch) for patching the kernel has nothing to do with the quality of code that they write.

It's the Kernel, the gates need to be kept else fools mess things up, thank god for Linus.

Re: Why GitHub Can't Host the Linux Kernel Community

#168

Post by eridius »

jacquesm wrote: post #154
eridius wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as someone who has been insulted personally and publicly by Linus, on a topic that Linus was completely wrong about, he's a real asshole. And it's extremely well documented that he's an asshole. I don't need to "consider that he might […] not be a complete asshole", because that's already a given. > You're making up this strawman very craftily I'm not making a straw man at all, and I resent your attempt to f…

Well, you could have put that gem out front instead of pulling a rabbit out of your hat. Otherwise to me you're just another anonymous person arguing on a forum rather than someone with a specific and relevant gripe. If there is a specific case where you disagreed with Linus and he insulted you then I understand why you want to take this up in this way but I notice that Linus is not a participant in the discussion he…

Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about and you're wildly speculating. And it's pretty offensive, to be honest. I'm not "seething", this isn't even close to the defining moment of my career, and I'm not on a crusade.

You're trying to portray me as some crazy caricature because it allows you to ignore my argument. That's not even remotely okay. My argument has nothing at all to do with that one interaction, and I only brought it up because you were trying to argue that Linus's asshole nature was just him being correct.

Please don't reply to me again. I have no wish to have to defend myself against your offensive and wildly incorrect accusations any further.

Post reply on HN