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

Give up GitHub: The time has come

sfconservancy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 585 posts

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#271

Post by ratww »

_ph_ wrote: post #216
ssully wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a whole, you are absolutely correct. But 99% of your daily interactions with Git come down to a handful of commands. Hell, print out a cheat sheet and tape it to your desk for the first few months of using it and you will be more than fine.

Until you make the slightest mistake and your work area gets into a state not covered by the cheat sheet. But of course, the standard recommendation seems to be just to remove the work area and check it out again :p

Well you can always for help from a co-worker more experienced with Git, or just search the internet for help. That could be a teaching moment.

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#273

Post by shreyshnaccount »

jrm4 wrote: post #199
brundolf wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's fair to frame this as specific to GitHub, or even as a thing to wring hands over. New devs - especially those coming from bootcamps (I say this without judgement) - mostly start with practical skills. Industry-standard ways to just get things done. That's how you get a job, that's how you get off the ground. This goes beyond source-control; languages/frameworks, tooling, etc. You enter the territor…

There is absolutely a need for moral panic if, like me, you believe that code and industry quality of product is more important than onboarding more people into the profession. I can't think of a worse idea than subconsciously letting the idea "By default, the way we are supposed store and write code is by putting it in the hands of a deeply centralized third party that will exploit you and owes you nothing" just sor…

like we (atleast people my age) by default are expected to have Instagram Snapchat WhatsApp YouTube Discord Reddit Spotify Twitter accounts and when I left some of these sources my friends actually questioned me about why I'd do that and some people even told me it was weird and I'll end up giving up material possessions and becoming a "sanyasi". fascinating that becoming a sanyasi is considered bad it actually sounds rather nice to me

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#274

Post by callahad »

> twenty-one years ago, the most popular code hosting site, a fully Free and Open Source (FOSS) site called SourceForge, proprietarized all their code — never to make it FOSS again.

Didn't SourceForge make its platform F/OSS again 11 years ago, under the name Allura? https://sourceforge.net/blog/new-projects-welcome-to-allura/ Looks like it ended up at the ASF: https://allura.apache.org/

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#275

Post by thrownaway561 »

maybe I'm being stupid, but i'm not seeing the issue here. having your code public means that anyone can copy it and use it. forget about respecting licensing and what not. if you don't want anyone copying your code, you have to keep it closed and not publish it to a public repo. i don't think this is necessary a github issue. I can copy code from any other service (gitlab, bitbucket, self hosted repo) as long as the repo is public.

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#276

Post by shreyshnaccount »

corrral wrote: post #208
MacsHeadroom wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My C class had weekly written programming tests. Not multiple choice tests. We had to write a program by hand and hope to god it would compile without any errors. Horrible way to teach C imho.

If they also made you do all the calculations the program would, by hand, and record the output, then penalized you if you made any errors on that... it'd be math class.

thats how they teach programming in a lot of places where I am

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#277

Post by shreyshnaccount »

corrral wrote: post #208
MacsHeadroom wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My C class had weekly written programming tests. Not multiple choice tests. We had to write a program by hand and hope to god it would compile without any errors. Horrible way to teach C imho.

If they also made you do all the calculations the program would, by hand, and record the output, then penalized you if you made any errors on that... it'd be math class.

this was my high school curriculum. did python without classes, matplotlib without numpy and django without understanding mvc. Just memorise it xD

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#278

Post by seadan83 »

quadrifoliate wrote: post #254
seadan83 wrote: post #176

As a leader of a FOSS project that is on github, and migrated off of sourceforge because SVN and email patches were not scaling - I'm a bit confused by this article. Co-pilot has issues, ergo github is going the way of sourceforge, and so now we must abandon github? Do I have that reasoning correct? We need to: - migrate the bug queue - have all links in commit history break - application integration with githib for…

> As a leader of a FOSS project that is on github...Do I have that reasoning correct? The way I read the article was that by being on GitHub, you are implicitly agreeing to no longer be a FOSS project as regards licensing. GitHub customers can use Copilot to generate proprietary code that's identical to your project's code (several articles I have read call this overall idea "laundering through Copilot", which sounds…

Piling on:

Is copilot really a violation of GPLv3 (our license)? How is co-pilot different from someone lifting sections of code? Lifting a few sections of the code is a world different compared to re-distributing the entirety of the source code, or forking the project and replacing 2 or 3 letters from our brand name & then redistributing that.

I think the article needed to go into more detail about how that really is a violation of a license. This seems like a similar argument that was made in court whether the Java APIs themselves could be copyrighted. Can an algorithm be copyrighted or licensed? If someone uses the same algorithm as found on FOSS, have they violated the license of that FOSS?

Then the reaction, instead of pursing litigation, and/or communicating and working with github, the reaction is we should 'cancel' github and move to.. gitlab? Is that even an answer? If we think algorithms are copyright-able, wouldn't have any kind of code search be a violation? Would allowing for any kind of transcription of code be a violation? If so, then seemingly having the source be open would invite this.

I think this gets to the heart of FOSS in some ways. It's closed for privatization, open to the community, and what matters is the software provided. If someone cribs the project to configure a Feign client, or set up a unit tests with DbRider - it's okay! It's the same thing as viewing HTML source code, learning a cool javascript trick by looking at how some website did that trick - is part of the openness.

I wonder then, is the point of FOSS openness only to allow others strictly to view and edit the code for the purpose of contributing back to that exact software product? Or is the openness more than that, and that others are going to use the software in creative and novel ways, and use it for learning and who-knows how else (all pursuant to GPLv3).

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#280

Post by zelphirkalt »

itslennysfault wrote: post #66
travisgriggs wrote: post #5

> 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…

I used to teach a coding bootcamp. I had over 100 students over about 2 years, and ran into this constantly despite my best effort to explain that git != github from day one. We even did an exercise where we just used git locally first and then later (on a different day) showed how you can push to github. It didn't seem to matter. People just decided that git = github and couldn't let go of that.

Should explain with another git hoster than github first, let them get used to something else. Then, when they meet github, they will know, that they used something different before (hopefully, otherwise they are hopeless cases).
Post reply on HN