701–710 of 716 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're upset because GitHub won't assume liability for your potentially illegal activity? Why not ask the EFF to setup a free service to host these sorts of files? They seem like the most qualified Org to do it.
I am not upset, I am neutral. I am merely answering a question with as much objectivity as possible: Providing examples of GitHub censoring projects to someone unaware of this, without adding my own views on this. It was quite curious seeing the, at least, 3 downvotes the initial link received. GitHub makes judgment calls on what to censor: They deem a project name offensive, they deem some piece of code stolen (unle…
The objection stems from the fact that censorship is always a dominant issue raised in discussions about platforms for sharing and, while it's important to keep it in mind if you're the type of person who might share controversial or objectionable content, that is type of sharing is the minority.
If we were in an oppressive regime like China where state mandated censorship is the norm, then it would be a much more pressing concern. But for most of us, we're not under an oppressive regime and decrying the platform for censorship is on par with complaining that reddit won't let you dox people or flicker banned you for posting kiddieporn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were several good responses to my message like yours. A ceo of a tech company has to both grow revenue and cultivate new technologies. A major company working in almost every area like microsoft has to do even more, so they don't get usurped like endless other former leading companies. Microsoft was challenged in a lot of ways. Ballmer did very well on the bringing in more money area. 1. mobile phones (basicall…
If Microsoft had “won” in Mobile by licensing Windows Mobile, where would it have gotten them? Google “won over” OEMs and got a whopping $21 billion in profit over eight years for their trouble. https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/21/10810834/android-generate... There was speculation that Microsoft made more from Android for years from patents than Google made. Besides, Microsoft is still making pretty good money on mobi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Microsoft had “won” in Mobile by licensing Windows Mobile, where would it have gotten them? Google “won over” OEMs and got a whopping $21 billion in profit over eight years for their trouble. https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/21/10810834/android-generate... There was speculation that Microsoft made more from Android for years from patents than Google made. Besides, Microsoft is still making pretty good money on mobi…
Control of android or being the alternative safe choice that everyone builds apps for is worth a lot of money, but you can also use it to reinforce use of your core apps, like google's gmail and search. microsoft instead lost people from using office apps on android, as they market decayed. sure, they are huge and rich and can afford it, and eventually got to office 360 and android versions of office apps. But it wou…
I also doubt that too many people who are spending less than $300 on phones (the average selling price of Android phones) are the target market for Microsoft.
Statistically, Google has captured market share of people with less disposable income than Apple has. It’s at most Pyrrhic victory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sourceforge got revived from its ashes though. It's a nice site nowdays.
I just opened up a project on there to see what you meant. I immediately got hit with 7 different ads on different parts of the page. It still feels pretty scummy to me. I understand the need for ads but 7? It seems excessive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why, oh, why couldn't they have called it pull-requests. Changing the terminology makes me not want to use gitlab.
Because pull request makes less sense than merge request. If you are building a new product why would you copy the mistakes of the competitors. Take a new dev who has never used gitlab or git. Merge request instantly makes sense but pull request does not.
But... But... Yes, I have no good arguments, but after 10 years of saying pull-requests anything else feels wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want I suspect you can just go play with: https://blog.github.com/2017-01-19-github-data-ready-for-you... I guess it only counts open source projects, but still that's a lot of data.
Sure, they publish some data. But I'd imagine that Microsoft can pull strings to get better data faster.
Afaik I saw the data set was updated weekly.. afaik it's maintained by GitHub.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GitLab's free private repos have the same feature set as their public ones. Not so with GitHub's, and this blog post hides that fact. https://github.com/pricing#feature-comparison
Not quite. https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/ The free tier is the functionality you get for private repos. Public (not internal) repos get Gold capabilities. Runner limits can be eliminated if you host your own runner to hook in to. The above is specifically for GitLab.com hosting. Self-hosted is a different story with features.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But beware and read the pricing sheet --- GitHub created a dumbed-down repo type for these new free private repos.
What does "dumbed-down repo type" mean ? How does they compare to public repo ? Are features missing ?