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

GitHub has alternatives, but no replacement

lalitm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 143 posts

Re: GitHub has alternatives, but no replacement

#81

Post by Brian_K_White »

thataccount wrote: post #11

Github is not something that should be replaced. Rather, a different kind of model needs to exist. Before Git, there were things like Subversion, for instance. All of that slowed way down after Git showed up to the party because people liked the fact Git was "easier to use" and eventually networking effects. When Microsoft purchased Git, the death knell had all ready sounded, but nobody was listening.

git was harder to use (harder to reason about), but it did something cvs/svn didn't do, so, harder or not, it made something possible vs not possible.

Did you confuse github with git? Indeed centralized git in Github is hardly any different from svn.

Re: GitHub has alternatives, but no replacement

#83

Post by tombert »

thataccount wrote: post #63
tombert wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Git isn't the platform. It's still just a version control. The article itself is explaining other platforms that work with Git, of which there are dozens. The `git` program itself isn't even developed on Github; it's developed on the kernel.org site [1]. Git != Github. There's still development for SVN, Perforce still has plenty of paying customers, and Epic games themselves released a new version control a few w…

Here is a simple question to highlight my point. Do you think Github would exist had Git not first existed? I know SVN is still developed, but it is no longer really treated as a solution. That is why we are talking about Git and not Subversion.

Well, it certainly wouldn't be called Github, but I'm sure there would be some equivalent "MercurialHub" or "MonotoneHub" had Git not been created.

Even before Git, there was Bitkeeper (which in some ways was arguably better), and that was what they used for the kernel until some drama with Larry McVoy happened. If there wasn't that drama, I think some kind of BitkeeperHub might have eventually happened.

Yes, Git overtook it, but I still don't really understand your point; it's not about Git, it's about a centralized forge.

Re: GitHub has alternatives, but no replacement

#84

Post by thataccount »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #81
thataccount wrote: post #11

Github is not something that should be replaced. Rather, a different kind of model needs to exist. Before Git, there were things like Subversion, for instance. All of that slowed way down after Git showed up to the party because people liked the fact Git was "easier to use" and eventually networking effects. When Microsoft purchased Git, the death knell had all ready sounded, but nobody was listening.

git was harder to use (harder to reason about), but it did something cvs/svn didn't do, so, harder or not, it made something possible vs not possible. Did you confuse github with git? Indeed centralized git in Github is hardly any different from svn.

>Did you confuse github with git? Indeed centralized git in Github is hardly any different from svn.

I used shorthand since I assumed people here were smart enough to assume that Microsoft buying Git would be understood as Github and not Git. It has proven to be a bad assumption.

Re: GitHub has alternatives, but no replacement

#85

Post by Groxx »

dijit wrote: post #68
markerz wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we using GitHub differently? I don’t understand how the social network part of GitHub has to do with having your code discoverable and to discover. I’ve never stumbled upon a project by browsing GitHub casually. It’s always through finding the product first and trying to find the source code. If the source code is on some other website, I’ll probably figure it out, but it’s be a new muscle. Same with making an is…

> I’ve never stumbled upon a project by browsing GitHub casually. Same. The “discoverability” of github is two things: 1) Recognition of the name; so if I cannot find the source code and I believe something to be open source I will google the product name with “github”. 2) I can reasonably expect everyone to have an account, so getting issues and PRs is less effort than with other forges. But I’ve practically never d…

Yeah, 2 is all I really care about. First-party discovery systems are almost always bad imo.

And every time I think about it for more than a second, I get mad that OpenID got eaten by OAuth.

Re: GitHub has alternatives, but no replacement

#86

Post by thataccount »

tombert wrote: post #83
thataccount wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a simple question to highlight my point. Do you think Github would exist had Git not first existed? I know SVN is still developed, but it is no longer really treated as a solution. That is why we are talking about Git and not Subversion.

Well, it certainly wouldn't be called Github, but I'm sure there would be some equivalent "MercurialHub" or "MonotoneHub" had Git not been created. Even before Git, there was Bitkeeper (which in some ways was arguably better), and that was what they used for the kernel until some drama with Larry McVoy happened. If there wasn't that drama, I think some kind of BitkeeperHub might have eventually happened. Yes, Git ove…

>Yes, Git overtook it, but I still don't really understand your point; it's not about Git, it's about a centralized forge.

What you aren't understanding is that all software development proceeds first by an underlying philosophy that evolves into other solutions inspired by the software that came before it. Git inspired the way Github works. You are trying to separate the two into distinct entities when they are really a flowing into one another.

Re: GitHub has alternatives, but no replacement

#87

Post by dijit »

Groxx wrote: post #85
dijit wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’ve never stumbled upon a project by browsing GitHub casually. Same. The “discoverability” of github is two things: 1) Recognition of the name; so if I cannot find the source code and I believe something to be open source I will google the product name with “github”. 2) I can reasonably expect everyone to have an account, so getting issues and PRs is less effort than with other forges. But I’ve practically never d…

Yeah, 2 is all I really care about. First-party discovery systems are almost always bad imo. And every time I think about it for more than a second, I get mad that OpenID got eaten by OAuth.

I’m still mad that Mozillas persona got no adoption.

I’m sure it was imperfect, but in theory it was easy to host and easy to implement. :(

Re: GitHub has alternatives, but no replacement

#88

Post by PaywallBuster »

markerz wrote: post #44
cedws wrote: post #13

Running a git forge is easy, I find the social coding/network effect the stickiest part of GitHub. I want my code to be discoverable, and I want to discover others' code. I wanted to leave GitHub but I'm still stuck there. What it would take for me to finally leave is some kind of federation of the social features, so I can port my stars over, see what others are working on, etc.

Are we using GitHub differently? I don’t understand how the social network part of GitHub has to do with having your code discoverable and to discover. I’ve never stumbled upon a project by browsing GitHub casually. It’s always through finding the product first and trying to find the source code. If the source code is on some other website, I’ll probably figure it out, but it’s be a new muscle. Same with making an is…

if I'm language agnostic, i'm not browsing package manager websites for software, i'm searching on github

Re: GitHub has alternatives, but no replacement

#89

Post by tombert »

thataccount wrote: post #86
tombert wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it certainly wouldn't be called Github, but I'm sure there would be some equivalent "MercurialHub" or "MonotoneHub" had Git not been created. Even before Git, there was Bitkeeper (which in some ways was arguably better), and that was what they used for the kernel until some drama with Larry McVoy happened. If there wasn't that drama, I think some kind of BitkeeperHub might have eventually happened. Yes, Git ove…

>Yes, Git overtook it, but I still don't really understand your point; it's not about Git, it's about a centralized forge. What you aren't understanding is that all software development proceeds first by an underlying philosophy that evolves into other solutions inspired by the software that came before it. Git inspired the way Github works. You are trying to separate the two into distinct entities when they are real…

Sure, but GitHub sort of runs contrary to what Git's philosophy, which is why I'm arguing that "Git" is an irrelevant variable with regards to the problems with Github.

Git, as a software version control platform, is supposed to be decentralized. It's designed to mimic the way that kernel development was done, with a lot of separate repos and email being used to merge in diff files.

If anything, Github really brings the subversion model to Git; Git primarily just has categorically better merging than SVN.

Re: GitHub has alternatives, but no replacement

#90

Post by Groxx »

dijit wrote: post #87
Groxx wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, 2 is all I really care about. First-party discovery systems are almost always bad imo. And every time I think about it for more than a second, I get mad that OpenID got eaten by OAuth.

I’m still mad that Mozillas persona got no adoption. I’m sure it was imperfect, but in theory it was easy to host and easy to implement. :(

Completely agreed, it had essentially everything I wanted out of such a system. I think they would've nailed it if they had just integrated it into the browser / an extension, and I'm baffled that they left it in such an awkward state for the full run - almost smells like intentional burying.

Revocation was hard, but it's not like existing systems are solving that in practice either, and you can get a long way by just keeping short leases (which is fine because nothing needs to communicate with any third party).

If passkeys weren't so blatantly DRM-friendly I might like those, but they seem intentionally human-hostile for no good reason at all.

Post reply on HN