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

Apache considered harmful

mikealrogers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 171 posts

Re: Apache considered harmful

#91

Post by danssig »

DannoHung wrote: post #34
tptacek wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not totally familiar with the issues here, but from an earlier perusal of the email threads on this, it seems like ASF's concern involves things like git's ability to edit the repository history.

I'm not super familiar with subversion's internals, but couldn't a malicious user edit a subversion repo history?

That's the best part: if you have access to the source SVN repo you can change history and there will be no evidence that you did so. History in Git, on the other hand, cannot be modified without it showing up.

The reason is that in Git every commit gets its own unique hash so you can't change a commit without creating a new hash. To have this in SVN you have to buy 3rd party tools.

Re: Apache considered harmful

#92

Post by abrahamsen »

Free project infrastructure wasn't hard to setup five years ago. It hasn't really been a problem since 1999 when SourceForge opened. Before that, the SunSites did a nice job, and before that you basically had to know a friendly university sysadm (which wasn't _that_ hard to find).

I'm not sure what people think they gain by going under the Apache umbrella, but it must be something since they bother. There are no lack of alternatives.

Re: Apache considered harmful

#93

Post by skrebbel »

mcantelon wrote: post #53
jaaron wrote: post #15

Ok, there's a lot to cover here. First off, the Apache Software Foundation isn't trying to absorb anyone or anything. Projects and people come to the ASF. It's a specific policy of the Foundation to NOT solicit projects. If someone says they're representing Apache and soliciting projects, they're wrong. Secondly, Apache is very opinionated about how projects should be run. This comes from years of experience as not o…

>there are some serious drawbacks for use of git Such as?

It's complicated.

Re: Apache considered harmful

#94

Post by apike »

sanxiyn wrote: post #64
apike wrote: post #35

The ASF is the first home that comes to mind when an successful open-source project needs independent stewardship. Often when a company wants to "spin off" an open source project, they turn to Apache. What alternative organizations fill this need in a more lightweight fashion? Most other umbrella open source organizations I know of focus on copyleft and other issues that can be hostile to commercial interests.

Software Freedom Conservancy. http://sfconservancy.org/ Conservancy doesn't care about licenses as long as they are free. For example, jQuery (MIT license) is part of Conservancy. Conservancy members include prominent projects such as Boost, BusyBox, Darcs, Git, Inkscape, jQuery, Mercurial, PyPy, Samba, Selenium, Squeak, uClibc, Wine.

Very cool. It seems like they are the type of organization Mikeal is encouraging ASF to become: legal and administrative support for open source projects, and other services if the project's leaders wish. Quite hands-off.

Comparing the lists of projects, I'm surprised to find I use more SFC software than ASF software.

Re: Apache considered harmful

#95

Post by danssig »

sliverstorm wrote: post #31
visural wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While correct, it would benefit Apache in the long run to foster better communities and tools for their projects to grow. While they provide value in terms of the protection/process/management it's all for nothing if the developers can't collaborate effectively. GitHub has changed many developer's UX of opensource development to the point that they don't want to do it "the old way". Apache should be looking to grow i…

Trouble is, their existing developers and projects seem to be doing fine with SVN. Don't forget those are the most important people, the workhorses you already have- not the flighty young birds you hope to one day trap. Sure, there is always the future to think about, but the future isn't happening a week from now. They have time to watch Git grow and wait until the time is right.

>Trouble is, their existing developers and projects seem to be doing fine with SVN.

This statement has little meaning. If they were still on SCCS and had been using it for years I'm sure they would "do just fine" with it. But if they move to something modern they could do even better.

Re: Apache considered harmful

#96

Post by soc88 »

aristedes wrote: post #85

Where to start with this blog post? It appears that the author has seen a couple of private emails and thinks he knows all about the internal workings of the Apache Foundation. He is wrong on so many counts. His entire dislike of the Apache Foundation appears to be predicated on the fact that the organisation did not force every project to move to this blogger's favourite version control tool. Making a change as larg…

The ASF is missing the boat here. It is like ... the 21st century? And core people of the Apache are not only thinking “SVN should be enough for everyone” but also make it exceptionally hard for projects to use the rigth tool for their job.

My bet is still on Git being shot down due to some random made-up “quality concerns” in the end.

ASF went from a helpful free software organization to a software graveyard: Ant, Maven, Subversion, Commons, OpenOffice ...

Sad, but that's reality.

Re: Apache considered harmful

#97

Post by ma2rten »

kahawe wrote: post #83
jaaron wrote: post #15

Ok, there's a lot to cover here. First off, the Apache Software Foundation isn't trying to absorb anyone or anything. Projects and people come to the ASF. It's a specific policy of the Foundation to NOT solicit projects. If someone says they're representing Apache and soliciting projects, they're wrong. Secondly, Apache is very opinionated about how projects should be run. This comes from years of experience as not o…

Spot on, excellent points and I could not help but wonder about the article... most people would consider "apache" to be synonymous for the httpd and not the ASF, so the headline is clearly fishing. Then, OP argues ASF's processes are broken and a github project with one maintainer is so much easier... you really have to consider the scale of the average sourceforge (back in the day) project vs. apache even back then…

I am sorry to tell you, but you are plain wrong! Git is better. The problem is that SVN embraces a workflow that is inferior. But if you are not willing to change your workflow, git will seem confusing, indeed.

Re: Apache considered harmful

#98

Post by kahawe »

ma2rten wrote: post #97
kahawe wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spot on, excellent points and I could not help but wonder about the article... most people would consider "apache" to be synonymous for the httpd and not the ASF, so the headline is clearly fishing. Then, OP argues ASF's processes are broken and a github project with one maintainer is so much easier... you really have to consider the scale of the average sourceforge (back in the day) project vs. apache even back then…

I am sorry to tell you, but you are plain wrong! Git is better. The problem is that SVN embraces a workflow that is inferior. But if you are not willing to change your workflow, git will seem confusing, indeed.

> I am sorry to tell you, but you are plain wrong! Git is better.

Please, do elaborate! In detail, why is git better than subversion if all I need is a central repository for a few people working at a company on one site, sitting in the same room with permanent network access. No distributed or remote or on-the-go development, no forks.

> SVN embraces a workflow that is inferior.

It is different but what exactly makes it inferior?

Re: Apache considered harmful

#99

Post by v21 »

ww520 wrote: post #13

I'm curious how does it harm anything? Did it kill any puppies? Maybe it's inefficient but harmful? Also remember GitHub is a for profit company. Its allowance for Open Source hosting is a marketing tactic. Anytime they feel the marketing value is not there, they will shut it down. Not that I'm against GitHub. It's a great company for itself. But comparing the Apache to GitHub is like comparing apple and orange.

It harms the opportunity cost of the projects that reside within it. That's a real harm.

And I think the point is that while GitHub is there, use it. If it closes off, or goes bust, migrate. You can extract all your data - keep a backup elsewhere. At worst, you can move to Gitorious. I mean, currently they use JIRA for bug tracking - that's not an open project either, that's run by Atlassian.

Re: Apache considered harmful

#100

Post by fuzzix »

kahawe wrote: post #98
ma2rten wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sorry to tell you, but you are plain wrong! Git is better. The problem is that SVN embraces a workflow that is inferior. But if you are not willing to change your workflow, git will seem confusing, indeed.

> I am sorry to tell you, but you are plain wrong! Git is better. Please, do elaborate! In detail, why is git better than subversion if all I need is a central repository for a few people working at a company on one site, sitting in the same room with permanent network access. No distributed or remote or on-the-go development, no forks. > SVN embraces a workflow that is inferior. It is different but what exactly make…

"Please, do elaborate! In detail, why is git better than subversion if all I need is a central repository for a few people working at a company on one site, sitting in the same room with permanent network access. No distributed or remote or on-the-go development, no forks"

You describe my environment almost exactly. I am pushing for a git migration mostly for the low-overhead branching/merging as I can have multiple discrete tasks on a given project which need to be rolled out individually.

Post reply on HN