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

GitHub Alternatives

tutswiki.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 193 posts

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#171

Post by whatever1 »

O1111OOO wrote: post #160
whatever1 wrote: post #126

Enough with this. Does anyone have any hard evidence that SV Angel, or IVP, or Thrive Capital, or Sequoia Capital, or Andreessen Horowitz (the main investors in GitHub), had more noble intentions, or management style than Microsoft of Nadella? Github was not a non-profit company. But you were willing to upload your private repo there. And somehow now it is problematic.

> And somehow now it is problematic. As far as I know, Github hasn't delivered a surveillance, keylogging Operating System. They haven't used deceptive practices in getting users to upgrade to Windows 10 (leading to class-action suits). Too many people are stating as fact that Microsoft is not the same company they were 5 years ago. They are right... I think they are worse.

And yet the good GitHub sold your private repos to the highest (and according to you the most evil) bidder.

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#172

Post by zamalek »

bmsleight_ wrote: post #92

I looked at lot of these alternatives, not many are eating their own dog food. Does not inspire me with confidence. * https://gitea.io/en-US/ The code for gitea is on Github. https://github.com/go-gitea/ * http://gitprep.yukikimoto.com/ The code for gitprep is on Github https://github.com/yuki-kimoto/gitprep * https://gogs.io/ Guess what ..... https://github.com/gogs/gogs

It could be argued that this is smart. Imagine you merge something that, as a simple example, renders pull inaccessible. Your authoritative source for the fix would then be itself inaccessible. People running that code would be in the dark as to what is wrong, or may struggle to report problems (if issues become inaccessible). Manual steps would be involved because their CI/CD might also break.

You'd expect them to never run the latest code in prod to avoid exactly this, but a cherry-picked vulnerability fix is one example of how this could realistically happen.

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#173

Post by MayeulC »

bmsleight_ wrote: post #92

I looked at lot of these alternatives, not many are eating their own dog food. Does not inspire me with confidence. * https://gitea.io/en-US/ The code for gitea is on Github. https://github.com/go-gitea/ * http://gitprep.yukikimoto.com/ The code for gitprep is on Github https://github.com/yuki-kimoto/gitprep * https://gogs.io/ Guess what ..... https://github.com/gogs/gogs

Well, there is a clear rationale behind that. This was brought up in another HN comment thread [1]:

https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/1029

https://lobste.rs/s/gokjbo/gitea_1_1_0_released#c_dg9pwe

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17245323

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#175

Post by O1111OOO »

whatever1 wrote: post #171
O1111OOO wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And somehow now it is problematic. As far as I know, Github hasn't delivered a surveillance, keylogging Operating System. They haven't used deceptive practices in getting users to upgrade to Windows 10 (leading to class-action suits). Too many people are stating as fact that Microsoft is not the same company they were 5 years ago. They are right... I think they are worse.

And yet the good GitHub sold your private repos to the highest (and according to you the most evil) bidder.

It's a bit of a stretch to call GitHub good from the statement I made or to call Microsoft the most evil bidder when evil will suffice. I'll have to chalk that up to unnecessary sarcasm on your part.

To get back on track... I find it astounding that there are people actually defending any worldwide multi-billion dollar corporation whose actions are so incredibly user-hostile. Ideally, I would love to see this turn into a historical crossroads of sorts...

A point where end-users, who have the real power here to actually say "enough already" and make this purchase absolutely worthless. Instead of continuing to give the powerful more power and complain about it, to take that power back. In essence, to send a statement that an Open Internet can still exist.

That it doesn't have to be the cesspool of surveillance, backdoors, keyloggers, data-sharing and hording run by a few Tech Giants with zero accountability. A GitHub exodus (ie, The Great GitHub Exodus) can represent that with Microsoft (and others like them) choking on their dirty billions.

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#176

Post by ionised »

natmaster wrote: post #32
craftyguy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because now github is owned by a company that was formerly very hostile to open source software, and this company is magically not.

Steve Ballmer is no longer CEO. Companies are run by people - they are not people.

Company culture doesn't transform within a few years.

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#177

Post by peterhi »

kingosticks wrote: post #53
craftyguy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what makes you think 1) company culture is no longer a thing and 2) that microsoft won't swing back towards being openly hostile or worse, 'secretly hostile' towards open source software when someone else is at the healm? I hope time will prove me wrong, but this acquisition is literally the 'embrace' phase of E3. Next comes the 'extend'.

Why would they acquire github just to turn on it and run it into the ground? You can do that if your users are locked-in or maybe you have a competing service but neither are the case here; there are numerous alternatives and it's pretty easy to switch, as we are already seeing. If they have anything but good intentions this would be just a giant waste of time/money.

Lets rephrase that shall we "Why would they acquire Nokia just to turn on it and run it into the ground?"

It doesn't need malice but Microsoft have a talent for this kind of thing

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#178

Post by eevilspock »

MK_Dev wrote: post #9

"A couple of years ago Microsoft was anti-open-source." The quote is from 2001 as is Ballmer's quote. Closing the article due to its lack of objectivity.

> This is not all about Microsoft. This is about the independence of what has become the de-facto home of open source. It shouldn't be owned by any company that has any agenda other than host that home.

> So no, we won't relax:

https://twitter.com/UpEnd_org/status/1003467392712880128

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#179

Post by kingosticks »

peterhi wrote: post #177
kingosticks wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they acquire github just to turn on it and run it into the ground? You can do that if your users are locked-in or maybe you have a competing service but neither are the case here; there are numerous alternatives and it's pretty easy to switch, as we are already seeing. If they have anything but good intentions this would be just a giant waste of time/money.

Lets rephrase that shall we "Why would they acquire Nokia just to turn on it and run it into the ground?" It doesn't need malice but Microsoft have a talent for this kind of thing

The mobile hardware division of Nokia had been heading this way for a long time - I have no idea why they went through with that. Is it fair to say all Microsoft's attempts at hardware (except XBOX) have failed?

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#180

Post by pehmyth »

bauerd wrote: post #89
oaiey wrote: post #78

These are no alternatives. GitHub is a specialized social network with git hosting included.

Exactly this, feature comparisons completely miss the point imo. GitHub is the centralized place where 95% of open source happens. A CI/CD pipeline bolted on top or k8s integration do not replace the community that GitHub is home to.

"GitHub is the centralized place where 95% of open source happens."

Simply false statement.

Post reply on HN