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

Saying Goodbye to GitHub

ersei.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 450 posts

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#271

Post by lofaszvanitt »

TheDong wrote: post #268
lofaszvanitt wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, not at all, just don't like power structures that feed on benevolent naivety. Of course it's good, but compensating those people should be the norm. Where is the payments side of github for example? So it's open source but in order to clone the rep you should spend 1 bucks on it, or if you want a bug/feature addressed you could name a price or the dev can set the price on it? Because the holy sacred cow must not…

> compensating those people should be the norm. Where is the payments side of github for example? [..] if you want a bug/feature addressed you could name a price or the dev can set the price on it? Github does have monetization. It has "sponsors", and you can create a "sponsor" level that is basically "I will consult with you and prioritize bugs you choose". It's totally normal for a developer who wants to monetize a…

It should be default. They are nowhere to be found when you click on code, to get the clone url for example. It's still up to you whether you pay or slack, the code will be there, it's free, just it would weigh down on your conscience. It's a safety net and a way to say thanks to the devs.

There are a lot of people who do it, because they like what they do (esp in the beginning, while it's not a maintenance nightmare), but would also like to have some side income from it, but they are timid/shy to ask for it. So the burden should be on the service provider to provide these services and not on the developer. The dev can even opt out of it (like you) if he wants to, but I think that would be the very minority.

You pour your heart into a project, others use your project like it's a free service, but in the end nobody gives you nothing for it. All you get is stars and forks, and some stats. Wow, thank you for the exploitation of your naivety.

You can buy the favorite beer, coffee, hamburger from the money flowing in, and that's your tangible reward for your efforts.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#272

Post by robinhood »

I maintain a popular OSS project which code is hosted on Github [1].

The entire "Github doesn't give back" argument is wrong. For "free", Github lets me host our code, run thousands and thousands of hours of free CI (and we are aggressively using it), host releases and docker images, and lets us manage thousands of issues. Also, Copilot is free when you are eligible to it, so we are fortunate enough to not have to pay for it as well.

Yes, they monetize our attention and train Copilot with the code, but the only argument which can't be used against this company is that they don't give back.

[1]: https://github.com/monicahq/monica

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#273

Post by jmclnx »

esskay wrote: post #238

I'm not sure people need to announce their departure from GitHub. You may not like their use of AI but legally speaking its entirely within their right to update their TOS for this. Is it sketchy? Absolutely. But given over the years they've provided billions of dollars of hosting and compute services to the opensource community for free I'm not sure there can be much of an argument that they don't have a right to cr…

>I'm not sure people need to announce their departure from GitHub.

I think people should if they are leaving for reasons described in the article, or other reasons due to Microsoft. If enough people leave there is a very remote hope Microsoft its ways. FWIW, I have been waiting for that to happen for well over 30 years :)

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#274

Post by usrbinbash »

> That there was nothing being given back.

Out of curiosity: How much does keeping github afloat cost per anno?

And not just afloat, but fast, reliable, secure and convenient.

And now we factor in how many users github has, and how many of them use it for free. Hell, I'm sure more than a few companies use it for free.

Microsoft is a corporation. Corporations want to make money. This is hardly a secret, and they can hardly be blamed for it. If people want to use a free offering of a company, well, then they have to be aware that the company in all likelyhood in some way benefits from that free offering as well. Because all that compute, all that bandwidth, all that storage, and all the people developing & maintaining it, don't come for free either.

If I don't like it, I either have to use an alternative run by a different company, or setup my own git server.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#275

Post by john_cogs »

cookiengineer wrote: post #8
alex_suzuki wrote: post #2

While I agree with the general observation of the article, the tone and wording feels needlessly harsh and subjective. Sentences like „I could go to GitLab, but they have their own fair share of issues and a disgusting UI/UX.“ really diminish the article and by association, also the author.

I don't understand why GitLab (as in gitlab.com) doesn't focus more on the discovery part in order to make people feel more welcome. I was using github.com/explore almost daily while it lasted. The trending repositories by language were an amazing tool to discover new tools and ideas. I really wish GitLab had something equivalent to this!

GitLab team member here.

In our 15.10 release (March 22), we added a new section called Explore that helps with content discovery and includes a tab for Trending projects that can be filtered by language. You can read out it in the release notes [0] or just go check it out [1].

0 - https://about.gitlab.com/releases/2023/03/22/gitlab-15-10-re...

1 - https://gitlab.com/explore/projects/trending

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#276

Post by the_gipsy »

feanaro wrote: post #160
the_gipsy wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't be different from a human ripping or regurgitating parts of the code. If it's not a hard derivation, then it's difficult to prove or even notice.

It shouldn't matter. If your model touched X during training, it should be seen as producing derivative work. This is the reason humans use clean room implementation techniques.

The opposite of clean room is probably much more common.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#277

Post by usrbinbash »

feanaro wrote: post #160
the_gipsy wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't be different from a human ripping or regurgitating parts of the code. If it's not a hard derivation, then it's difficult to prove or even notice.

It shouldn't matter. If your model touched X during training, it should be seen as producing derivative work. This is the reason humans use clean room implementation techniques.

> If your model touched X during training, it should be seen as producing derivative work.

I as a programmer touched X during training (learning how to code). Is all my work now derivative because of that?

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#278

Post by Uvix »

gampleman wrote: post #255
bruce511 wrote: post #11

I'm gonna get hated on for this, but I don't think "give back" is an open source concept. I'm not aware of any Open Source license,or Free license for that matter,that has a give-back clause. Source code is available to -users- ,not prior-authors. Some Open Source licenses can be used in proprietary code, (MIT, BSD etc) with little more than simple attribution. Those developers chose that license for a reason, and I'…

From the MIT license: > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. Does GPT spit out the copyright notice when it regurgitates my code?

Is GPT spitting out “substantial portions” of your code?

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#279

Post by ghaff »

happymellon wrote: post #59
japhyr wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need to hate on you for a valid response. I think we're in a new enough situation that we can look beyond what's legal in a license. When many of us started working on open source projects, AI was a far-off concept. Speaking for myself, I thought we'd see steady improvement in code-completion tools, but I didn't think I'd see anything like GPT-4 in my lifetime. Licenses were written for humans working with code. W…

> Yes, I'm talking explicitly about feelings. I know my feelings don't impact the legalities of a license. They don't impact the current legality of a licence, but it will affect future ones. GPL/BSD/Apache/proprietary, they are all picked for ideological concerns which all stem from feelings. It is good to discuss these things, and it is good to recognise that these are emotionally driven.

>they are all picked for ideological concerns which all stem from feelings

Or, perhaps more commonly, they were picked for business model reasons or (related) because building a community that includes commercial interests tends to favor more permissive licensing.

Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub

#280

Post by a_bonobo »

cowl wrote: post #163
FeepingCreature wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe they just disagree with you?

Who? See: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3442188.3445922 A 2021 research paper warning (among other things) precisly about this confusion. > The ersatz fluency and coherence of LMs raises several risks, precisely because humans are prepared to interpret strings belonging to languages they speak as meaningful and corresponding to the communicative intent of some individual or group of individuals who have accounta…

>Is there any Researcher who maintains that LLM models contain Reasoning and intent?

That's the funny thing about the (in)famous OpenAI letter; the first sentence kind of does this:

>AI systems with human-competitive intelligence can pose profound risks to society and humanity, as shown by extensive research[1]

'human-competitive intelligence' sounds like reasoning to me. What's even funnier is that [1] is the stochastic parrot paper, which argues exactly the opposite!

Post reply on HN