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

GitHub and the crime against software

eblog.fly.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 124 posts

Re: GitHub and the crime against software

#51

Post by mistydemeo »

ashishb wrote: post #27

Nginx was compelled to move to GitHub [1]. The fact that companies request you to star them on GitHub and the stars can be bought tells you that there is a value in these stars. [2] Now, some astute reader, who thinks the $1 trillion global advertisement market does not influence them, will also claim that they don't care about GitHub stars. Well, that's not how the world works. Fake stars can propel a good project t…

They didn't move primarily because of stars, they moved because they had been using Mercurial and most developers aren't familiar with it.

Re: GitHub and the crime against software

#52

Post by tln »

majicDave wrote: post #22
mawadev wrote: post #18

I hope vscode does not end up like this

This is my fear too. Feels inevitable tbh.

Github availability is driven by massive growth in the amount of work. I might add that is without a massive growth in the amount of accounts.. MS is struggling to make Github systems scale, clearly.

VS Code doesn't have a similar scaling issue that I see

Re: GitHub and the crime against software

#53

Post by doublerabbit »

jamie_davenport wrote: post #43

Even ignoring the reliability and security issues, Github feels like an app from 2008. Issues aren't a proper project management tool and wikis aren't fit as documentation. I've completely abandoned Github.

That would be because Github was founded in 2008. Microsoft bought it in 2015 and hasn't done anything apart from restrict and milk.

Unlike sourceforge, how am I suppose to find new stuff when I am rate-limited after a couple of searches?

Re: GitHub and the crime against software

#55

Post by vinnymac »

ivanjermakov wrote: post #13
bix6 wrote: post #10

What happened to hacker culture? Did everyone (or enough) just sell out? It’s fascinating to me that the people who know the most about tech keep deciding over and over to give something to some corporation and inevitably it becomes an issue. I guess ease of use and freemium really trumps everything; I expect more from smart people but money talks.

Nobody wants to pay for git hosting. Seems like nobody wants to self-host it either.

I’m actively working on a free and open source alternative Frontend for Forgejo that I self host called Joui

Re: GitHub and the crime against software

#56

Post by ashishb »

kristianc wrote: post #48
ashishb wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm thinking like "you had 200 GitHub stars before coming to us so we start you with 200 stars" as a migration process. maybe they wouldn't be as reputable but everyone knows it's gamed anyway, so why not? And how will the project accumulate more? > everyone knows it's gamed anyway, so why not? Then why do they still have purchase value?

> everyone knows it's gamed anyway, so why not? Arbitrage. Devs know its gamed. VCs less so.

Simpler answer: TINA (there is no better alternative)

Re: GitHub and the crime against software

#57

Post by jodacola »

I've been an avid GitHub user for a very long time.

I remember way back in the "olden days" in San Francisco seeing people with Octocat signs on Market. GitHub was awesome. Fond memories.

But times are a-changin', and for lots of reasons I just don't feel like GitHub is cool or "for me" anymore.

So, with my new Mac Mini, because they were on sale and everyone was getting one for OpenClaw... I put that puppy on my tailnet, installed Gitea, and I've been using it exclusively for all my projects. It's been weeks since I've pushed anything to GitHub.

I feel free.

Re: GitHub and the crime against software

#58

Post by Morromist »

macintux wrote: post #8

> Microsoft: Our priorities are clear: availability first, then capacity, then new features. > This is a lie. Github - and the microsoft organization more widely - clearly prioritize flashy AI features over fundamental reliability Github has a public changelog. In thirty days since they posted their update, their patch notes contain the words “copilot” 59 times, “agent” 8 times, “performance” 0 times, and “reliabilit…

those insulting graphs Microsoft put out with no labeled axes just shows how serious they are about all of this.

Re: GitHub and the crime against software

#59

Post by hluska »

dijit wrote: post #31
guessmyname wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you keep Issues, Pull Requests, Wikis, Discussions, project boards, and everything else? (rhetorical question.) These days, the problem with cloud-hosted Git platforms is not where to push your code. Replicating repositories across multiple providers is relatively easy, and Git has always been good at that. The harder problem is that successful teams end up accumulating a lot more than source code around the…

(I upvoted you, for asking the real questions, but to answer) > Where do you keep Issues, Youtrack > Pull Requests, Gerrit, it's way better for code review > Wikis, Also Youtrack, but other software exists that's specific for this, I have seen Confluence used a lot and while I don't recommend: that's usually the case. > Discussions, As far away from code as possible, right now it's Zulip > project boards, Youtrack, t…

I don’t get it. That’s a lot of failure points to incur in the name of flexibility.

Re: GitHub and the crime against software

#60

Post by Paracompact »

sanskritical wrote: post #9

People should consider decentralized git over Nostr, rather than switching to a replacement like Codeberg or Gitlab and waiting for the resulting enshittification after it attracts everyone else. https://nostrapps.github.io/nostrgit/

Will anyone who downvoted indicate why they've done so? I've never heard of Nostr, but this seems like a valid suggestion and point to be made, albeit at the expense of others' recommendations.
Post reply on HN