Give up GitHub: The time has come • Hacker News Board

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#381

Post by joshstrange » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 10:40 PM UTC

doodles33 wrote: post #347

joshstrange wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And as I said in reply to a sibling comment: Then you are effectively maintaining 2 codebases. Also, I'm not aware of any SPA framework (at least the big 3) that even offer an escape hatch to do something like that. Maybe with SSR and some special logic you could but it would be painful and ultimately not worth it.

Remix provides something close to what you are thinking, the application works perfectly without JavaScript but gets enhanced if it's enabled which is pretty nice. edit: Without code duplication of course

Remix, along with the other frameworks/libraries you've mentioned, are very interesting. I've considered trying out SSR with Quasar (the Vue framework I work most in), though selling it to "business" is hard and I understand why, I can't bring myself to eat the cost (both time and real dollar cost) on my own projects. I do hope SSR continues to advance, though I have some trouble imagining a "free"/"seamless" fallback for no-js users and so other than initial paint I'm not sure how functional some sites will be.

I specifically called out "web apps" in my first comment as I do understand the value SSR brings to things like blogs, news, or other simple sites where JS is not needed, or where it can have a clean fallback. On the other hand, I write "apps" (sometimes deployed on phones via Quasar/Capacitor as well as on the web) and those get much more complicated. I'm not quite sure how modals, WYSIWYG, rich date pickers, etc translate for a no-js user. Simple navigation is easy enough to grasp but my understanding is that things like NextJS/NuxtJS are really just for first render/paint and then React/Vue take it from there. I could be behind the times on what's possible without JS and using SSR through. I just know the PHP codebase I also work in uses plenty of JS to be functional (not above and beyond, literally "table stakes" stuff).

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#382

Post by natefinch » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 10:40 PM UTC

biztos wrote: post #366

naikrovek wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to know what stuff you guys are putting in public GitHub FOSS repos that you don't want replicated in any way... I also want to know why people think their code is so special that no one else could have ever come up with it independently. Each and every opponent of Copilot is the best developer ever, I guess? That said, I don't understand the choice to use GPL for any reason, so maybe I'm not equipped to under…

> their code is so special that no one else could have ever come up with it independently I'm worried about exactly the opposite: having Copilot help me write code that seems quite generic to me, but which in fact makes my code subject to a license I don't even know about, and/or simply violates copyright. For an open-source project this could be embarrassing but probably fixable. It gets more complicated if FAANG is…

There's a setting on GitHub that blocks any suggestions that exactly match code in the training set. I doubt you'd ever get in trouble for code that was similar in structure but different variables etc from existing licensed code (especially since most small snippets of code are not terribly unique to begin with).

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#383

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 10:41 PM UTC

longrod wrote: post #212

I find it very strange that the same HN crowd that loves open source and wouldn't touch anything proprietary with a 10 foot pole has so many reservations against moving off of GitHub. I am not generalizing here, just surprised. According to what I have seen in my short experience, HN should have ditched GitHub long since. Anyway... I have always been curious as to why the largest hosting for OSS isn't open source its…

[deleted]

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#384

Post by UmbertoNoEco » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 10:41 PM UTC

I had my suspicions but reading this comment thread I am now 100% sure that FAANGS and the likes have active PR firms working on HN threads. Naive to not have realized that before I know.

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#385

Post by dzaima » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 10:51 PM UTC

brabel wrote: post #316

teruakohatu wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wow, I really admire people who can turn C into useful, complex project If you use any open source operating systems a significant portion of software you interact with are C (kernel, shell, utilities, sqlite etc).

I'm well aware... but still, when I see new software written in C when there are so many languages available (which was not the case when Linus started writing Linux) it's amazing to me, both because they can actually do it (I definitely don't have the discipline to pull it off, spoiled too much by high level languages) and because they didn't just choose to use something easier like Go or even Java.

C isn't that hard; you certainly have to approach things in a pretty different way, and it does have a slower curve to productivity, but once you get past the hurdle of having less abstraction (i.e. mostly by just not making pointless abstractions, and having general utilities for the cases you do need some) and learn "gdb -ex r ./program [wait for crash] bt " to get a stacktrace, it's, give or take, usable.

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#386

Post by azangru » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 10:51 PM UTC

longrod wrote: post #212

I find it very strange that the same HN crowd that loves open source and wouldn't touch anything proprietary with a 10 foot pole has so many reservations against moving off of GitHub. I am not generalizing here, just surprised. According to what I have seen in my short experience, HN should have ditched GitHub long since. Anyway... I have always been curious as to why the largest hosting for OSS isn't open source its…

> and wouldn't touch anything proprietary with a 10 foot pole

Consider Macbooks...

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#387

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 10:53 PM UTC

sreevisakh wrote: post #256

remram wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gitea (and a few others) are working on federation for pull requests, which would allow someone to fork your project to their own server, and send a pull request offering you to merge from their server into yours. It also builds on top of ActivityPub which is supposed to allow federation with the greater ActivityPub ecosystem ("fediverse"). I guess this would allow people to like or comment your issue or pull request…

> I am not that excited about that last part, but federating pull requests sounds like a killer feature Git already has a pull request feature [1] that's as federated as it can get. The 'request-pull' command can be used to request pull on upstream repositories hosted anywhere (or not at all). The only requirement is that the downstream clone must be online. I know that HN isn't particularly found of email-based work…

[deleted]

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#388

Post by rickspencer3 » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 10:54 PM UTC

This is why I prefer to use permissible license for my own software. I just don't need the drama of worrying about what people are doing with my code after I write it. Living in a world where you think a company is evil for training ML models on code that is published for anyone to read on the internet anyway because it violates the license you used just sounds exhausting.

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#389

Post by lumost » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 10:56 PM UTC

josephcsible wrote: post #122

> If it is, as you claim, permissible to train the model (and allow users to generate code based on that model) on any code whatsoever and not be bound by any licensing terms, why did you choose to only train Copilot's model on FOSS? For example, why are your Microsoft Windows and Office codebases not in your training set? This is my favorite question about Copilot ever.

I’d be curious if you could get copilot to cough up its own answer on its legality.

Re: Give up GitHub: The time has come

#390

Post by UncleEntity » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 10:57 PM UTC

ordiel wrote: post #371

seadan83 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

If source its not subjet to corpyright then independently of it being illegaly leaked, i could unbrand XP's source code (that as I recall was leaked no long back) use it and redistribute it even for profit... I would like to see M$ answer to that. I think the issue with Java's API was actually terribly explained even by Oracle's lawyers, Google stole that API, first because it already had a large amount of developers…

> I think the issue with Java's API was actually terribly explained even by Oracle's lawyers…

Of which none of your examples are in any way applicable to the case of google violating the Java copyright.

The Java Specification gives terms and conditions for usage which is what the lawsuit was about and not some laundry list of things which annoys a random internet person. In fact, not annoying your users isn’t even mentioned once in the conditions to call an implementation “Java” strangely enough.

Or I’m completely wrong and oracle doesn’t spend enough on their legal team.