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

Bye, Bye GitHub

log.ozgur.works

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: Bye, Bye GitHub

#71

Post by ModernMech »

halyconWays wrote: post #70
ModernMech wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you should be able to find a better proximal cause. Like being bought by Microsoft, which happened in the intervening period. That would be a better explanation than feminists from a decade+ ago.

Company: "We're no longer going to focus on merit as a virtue." Company slowly becomes worse and worse. Me: "That starting gun surely signaled the start of the decline." You: "That was a long time ago. Couldn't have been that." What are second-order consequences?

You're ignoring that the company grew 10x since then and was colonized, the CEO you're angry about was replaced, so insofar you're claiming this culture change happened 10 years ago which precipitated problems until today, you're conveniently ignoring a much larger culture change which more easily explains what's happened. For your explanation to work you'd have to explain how the change survived the Microsoft acquisition and that culture actually persisted.

Re: Bye, Bye GitHub

#72

Post by megagpt1 »

jamesponddotco wrote: post #34

With SourceHut banning projects that use LLMs[1], I’m looking to migrate this weekend. While I can host Forgejo just fine[2], doing so means no one will be able to contribute to the projects, since federation isn’t a thing yet. Heck, getting contributions on SourceHut was hard enough, and it doesn’t even require people to register an account. I might need to bite the bullet and go with GitHub. Regardless of what I th…

Can't they either sign up for accounts on your Forgejo, or send you an IM to request a pull?

Re: Bye, Bye GitHub

#73

Post by megagpt2 »

oscarcp wrote: post #45
jamesponddotco wrote: post #34

With SourceHut banning projects that use LLMs[1], I’m looking to migrate this weekend. While I can host Forgejo just fine[2], doing so means no one will be able to contribute to the projects, since federation isn’t a thing yet. Heck, getting contributions on SourceHut was hard enough, and it doesn’t even require people to register an account. I might need to bite the bullet and go with GitHub. Regardless of what I th…

It ridiculous, Codeberg did the same. I get why, really, I do, but it's creating a severe damage that will be abused by a third evil actor that will take over the wasteland of GitHub and GitLab by creating a service that will allow anything (until it is enshittified of course) Outcome? Everyone on their own self-hosted git servers, zero collaboration.

What kind of collaboration were you getting on your random GitHub uploads? I didn't get any. This collaboration thing seems like an excuse if people have a way to contact you.

Codeberg only banned projects that are majority LLM-coded. They did not ban all use of LLMs.

Re: Bye, Bye GitHub

#75

Post by megagpt2 »

guywithahat wrote: post #14
monkaiju wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe for big companies that irresponsibly vendor-locked themselves, but I work at a SMB (~60 employees) and we switched to Forgejo in a couple days

I would not call it irresponsible. If you have a big, long running project you're going to want to develop complex pipelines and build processes to help with development and testing. This will save a lot of time and create a more consistent workflow, but switching vendors can require redoing work that was built over years.

GitHub encourages this by using an arcane pipeline configuration format that could have been a shell script and has no way to run it outside GitHub.

Re: Bye, Bye GitHub

#76

Post by megagpt2 »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #44
vladkens wrote: post #32

GitHub is going the wrong way, but there really is nothing workable for open-source projects except GitHub. I don’t want to register on all these random GitHub killers just to open an issue or PR in a random project I’ve interacted with. For personal or team setups, any third-party service will work well.

> GitHub is going the wrong way, but there really is nothing workable for open-source projects except GitHub. Open source projects existed just fine before GitHub, and they will exist just fine if they choose to move off GitHub as well. It's not a big deal if people won't do drive by contributions any more.

Or if they have to do them by email or instant messenger. What's wrong with joining a Matrix channel to send a drive-by bug report?

Re: Bye, Bye GitHub

#77

Post by megagpt2 »

oscarcp wrote: post #38

I was about to mention Codeberg but I saw the last two changes to the terms of use and they're basically digging themselves into the ground with so many restrictions

Is your a majority of your project LLM code?

Re: Bye, Bye GitHub

#78

Post by megagpt2 »

ModernMech wrote: post #66
halyconWays wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think that sudden, radical, and politically motivated change in the core leadership of a company doesn't have long-lasting and compounding effects?

I think you should be able to find a better proximal cause. Like being bought by Microsoft, which happened in the intervening period. That would be a better explanation than feminists from a decade+ ago.

Or moving to Azure, a known garbage platform, which happened at exactly the same time the problems began.

Re: Bye, Bye GitHub

#79

Post by halyconWays »

ModernMech wrote: post #71
halyconWays wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Company: "We're no longer going to focus on merit as a virtue." Company slowly becomes worse and worse. Me: "That starting gun surely signaled the start of the decline." You: "That was a long time ago. Couldn't have been that." What are second-order consequences?

You're ignoring that the company grew 10x since then and was colonized, the CEO you're angry about was replaced, so insofar you're claiming this culture change happened 10 years ago which precipitated problems until today, you're conveniently ignoring a much larger culture change which more easily explains what's happened. For your explanation to work you'd have to explain how the change survived the Microsoft acquis…

And yet 2014 was when the company culture completely changed. The co-founder resigned. The company switched to having bosses for everyone (previously they had an informal hierarchy). They moved to having serious HR, PMs, tech leads, 1:1 reporting, etc. They had a brain drain, like firing Zach Holman, a prominent leader. There was that "Dear GitHub" letter about it, when prominent orgs made a public letter about how GitHub was getting shittier. Reliability got worse and worse, steadily. Pre-2014 was called GitHub 1.0. AKA it's institutional rot.

Re: Bye, Bye GitHub

#80

Post by ModernMech »

halyconWays wrote: post #79
ModernMech wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're ignoring that the company grew 10x since then and was colonized, the CEO you're angry about was replaced, so insofar you're claiming this culture change happened 10 years ago which precipitated problems until today, you're conveniently ignoring a much larger culture change which more easily explains what's happened. For your explanation to work you'd have to explain how the change survived the Microsoft acquis…

And yet 2014 was when the company culture completely changed. The co-founder resigned. The company switched to having bosses for everyone (previously they had an informal hierarchy). They moved to having serious HR, PMs, tech leads, 1:1 reporting, etc. They had a brain drain, like firing Zach Holman, a prominent leader. There was that "Dear GitHub" letter about it, when prominent orgs made a public letter about how G…

And yet after that incident, and whatever serious brain drain, HR, PMs, tech leads, 1:1 reporting (all symptoms and pains of a growing company); GitHub still remained meritorious enough to merit being bought by one of the biggest companies in the world for billions of dollars, so you have a huge problem with your assessment the company culture changed to one of anti-merit after this incident.

What actually changed was they got rid of a rug, a tweet was posted, and some feminists (do you even know if they work there anymore?) were part of the charge and that pissed you off enough you're still talking about it a decade later.

And despite this strong conviction you have, you've provided 0 references (you didn't even cite the original incident, I had to figure out what you were talking about) or evidence in several back and forth messages to support up your position, which you're on the hook to prove since you made the claim. To me it sounds like you're talking out of your rear.

Feel free to have the last word on this one, but I won't be responding again since I've made my point thoroughly and there hasn't been anything added to the discussion since 3 posts ago, cheers.

Post reply on HN