111–120 of 273 posts
Sure, slap a clone on GH for a bit of extra traffic - but keep your main activities somewhere under your control.
Some example comments in this thread: >"People should move their youbube-dl repositories to servers hosted in Switzerland, " >"Time for a decentralized version control system?" >"The nice thing about fossil" ... those well-meaning suggestions are missing the true difficulty : The community wants a (1) Schelling Point [0] for workflow/issues/discussions/PRs that's also (2) censorship resistant. So far, (1) and (2) con…
I have to laugh at this one. Git is a decentralized VCS, that was effectively re-centralized (via Github) for the sake of convenience.
When men were men, every single GH user would host YT-dl in protest, then good luck to MS alienating their entire userbase. (ps. I don't have a GH account)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gitlab is apparently a US based company. Unlikely that they would be more courages than Github.
The only way GitLab would escape DMCA would be to host in China or Russia (which also would get it banned by many of their customers). The US has many IP agreements with European countries and even some Asian countries, good luck escaping from it.
EDIT: and in contrast to e.g. Germany or apparently the US there is nothing like a cease and desist letter in Switzerland, but claims such as the present one must be brought before the court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean with "real" decentralization? Git is as decentralized as you can get. You don't need IPFS to make it decentralized, it's already there. It was designed that way. A lot of people are confused about this because GitHub and GitLab are the only intermediaries they've used to collaborate with git. If that applies to you and you would like to know better, read this: https://drewdevault.com/2019/05/24/What-…
I was pretty clear in what I said: Gitea and Gitlab are centralized. Git itself is neither centralized nor decentralized by design, it merely provides an infrastructure for replication and is agnostic about whether or not there is a "center" to the space of replicas. It depends on how you use it... but in practice the way it is used in nearly all projects is that there is one "main" (authoritative) upstream repo for…
There is no "latest" version of a project in the decentralized model. As soon as there is one "latest" version that rules them all, you have centralized an aspect of the project and that immediately becomes a target for organizations like the RIAA. IPFS does not help here. Because in the end, someone must have the exclusive right to release a new "latest" version. This release mechanism becomes a single point of failure.
Sure, you can use use IPFS to create multiple copies of that new version to avoid having them taken down. But you also could just do `git clone` on a new server, as so many already have done. Creating copies and putting them up for download is not the problem.
If git is used in a true decentralized way, everybody has their own version of the project. No two have to be alike. Do you want to use youtube-dl to download porn, get the version with the right extension. Do you have moral objections to porn, get the version without them. Exactly like there is no "one" Linux, each distro has its own version, with the patches they think are important. This way, the RIAA could even release their own version of the tool. One that can download from Youtube, but not video's that are subject to the copyright they want to uplhold.
Users would not have download the tool directly from that one developer/team, they could download it from whoever they trust to have their best interests at heart. That is what decentralization means.
Technologists once again shocked that a policy issue cannot be solved by Technology. Tech solutions that are not aligned with the policy only work until lawyers and politicians catch up.
A newsgroup works. Its just that no one under 30 seems to realize that you don't need js to have a web application.
https://www.cnet.com/news/n-y-attorney-general-forces-isps-t...
I think some people are missing a major point about youtube-dl's takedown. The purpose of this DMCA claim wasn't just to prevent people from downloading videos, it was to set a legal precedent for the RIAA and similar organizations to troll Github and anyone hosting public repositories with it, by linking them to "illegal downloads". By agreeing to this without any public opposition, Github has become similar to Yout…
I am sorry...but what would the RIAA troll Github for exactly?
Some example comments in this thread: >"People should move their youbube-dl repositories to servers hosted in Switzerland, " >"Time for a decentralized version control system?" >"The nice thing about fossil" ... those well-meaning suggestions are missing the true difficulty : The community wants a (1) Schelling Point [0] for workflow/issues/discussions/PRs that's also (2) censorship resistant. So far, (1) and (2) con…
> >"Time for a decentralized version control system?" I have to laugh at this one. Git is a decentralized VCS, that was effectively re-centralized (via Github) for the sake of convenience.
Of course, there is the benefit of a VCS built on the idea of decentralization: not having to be online to make commits (cough SVN cough). But, in theory, could a centralized system work in “offline mode” like Git?