41–50 of 585 posts
Does Github give users a toggle to opt-out of being in the copilot training dataset? I feel like that would be a decent compromise for folks not down with their code being used in copilot.
GitHub is taking my code and ignoring the license. I don’t understand why anyone would think that is ok.
The writing is a problem. It's a call to action, it's a history lesson, it's an opinion piece. And, it's a mess. This is not The New Yorker: I want to know the gist of what you have to say in the first paragraph, and I want intro and outro to be good summaries. Bonus points for a structure that let's me surveil the finer points easily.
It’s easy to say “our rights are being stripped away” but the view that businesses should operate like non profits or government services with the common good in mind is ludicrous!
What are peoples opinions on gitlab? It wasn’t mentioned in this article, I’m wondering if it was a willful omission.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the parent's point was that the intern knew about github and assumed git was github.
I used to be confused by this. It's because "git" is in the name and GitHub is the first thing you encounter, so I was like, "oh, is git some command line extension of GitHub?" rather than the reverse. :D
Most people will get that.
> For its part, Git was designed specifically to make software development distributed without a centralized site. Just yesterday I had to explain the basic premise/history of Git to a young intern. I had asked him if he was using Git to manage his little pet project the company gave him to play with. “No”, he replied, he didn’t know what the company’s policy was to posting code in public on GitHub. As I explained to…
"Well of course, MS invented Git!"
Wrong on so many levels:
1. Conflating Github with Git.
2. They bought it, not invented/founded it.
3. Most importantly, MS's recommendation to use Git for TF existed long before they bought Github.
Needless to say, I didn't join that team. Unfortunately, misconceptions like these, and a refusal to use Git[1] due to its complexity are quite common at the company - and it is one of the larger SW companies[2] in the country.
[1] I'm OK with any DVCS. Even I prefer Mercurial to Git. But most of the company prefers SVN or TF's version control. In 2015, many teams had to be dragged kicking and screaming by IT from CVS to SVN. In 2015, when Git already dominated the world.
[2] By number of employees with "SW " in their title. Not by revenue, etc.
They seem to be making slow but steady progress on this at Gitea, maybe at other FOSS forges, too.
Quoted post unavailable.
I'm grateful for experiments like Copilot and replit's[0] "generate and explain." Maybe there are issues with software licenses and "ai assistants," but the way to surface the issues is with working software. I don't think this is a case of "move fast and break things." It's always been possible to abuse open source licenses without "ai."
There are plenty of alternatives to GitHub if you don't like it. There's no need for the hypercritical tone in this piece.
[0] https://twitter.com/tylerangert/status/1540013772693245958
GitHub is a business and currently provides free storage and a pretty nice interface to it. It’s easy to say “our rights are being stripped away” but the view that businesses should operate like non profits or government services with the common good in mind is ludicrous!
I don’t think that that is what is being asked here. Even if GitHub didn’t violate license terms, it would have ways to make money.