111–120 of 139 posts
Dear github, please sort out your: - Intermittent angry unicorns - Slow data transfer (150kb/sec?!) - Poor support - Expensive enterprise licence, why don't you host a better service and i will pay for it?
* What protocol are you cloning over?
* What connection are you cloning over?
* Where is the connection that you are cloning over?
That guy knows how to make good looking slides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, git is a distributed VCS, so all you need in order to use it socially is the Internet. Just publish your fork on your machine (or just anywhere on the net) and anyone else connected to the Internet can pull it, github is simply superfluous for that, the Internet already connects everyone to everyone.
That's akin to saying you're part of a 'social network' by virtue of having your own homepage. Sure, everyone can come to your site to see your updates/pics/etc but it's not a fair comparison to the things Facebook/twitter/G+ provide.
Now, there may be functionality that those services provide that others currently do not, and I never disputed that. But the original argument was that somehow that little fenced garden had a large userbase.
Other than that, I am not sure I am interested in the surveillance, lock-in (potential), and manipulation possibility that FB/twitter/G+/github/whathaveyou "provide".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main goal of raises isn't cost of living adjustments, but as a part of career progression. If you're staying in a stable role and productivity, then you need COLA. If you're improving, in time you become significantly more valuable both to the company and to outside market, so you deserve much larger compensation than back in the years when you were a fresh-out-of college newbie.
I don't think his reply runs contrary to your post, if you include the last part of that sentence: > To keep you from being effectively paid less (because the cost of living keeps going up), and to make sure you feel satisfied with how much money you're making .
Seems like 20% of that slide deck is about chat rooms... GitHub still uses Campfire for chat? I tried Campfire and Hipchat a couple years ago, neither stuck. Not sure why, maybe poor offline notifications and logging? Or maybe our team didn't have enough timezone overlap or things to chat about? Hard to say. Is strong chat as important to Github as Zach implies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The big deal about GitHub is that they were in large part responsible for the current Open Source Renaissance we currently find ourselves in. Do you remember the world before? Where you would hunt for someone's private SVN repo on their personal site and email them patches, only to hope that something comes of your effort? Compare that with the world of today, where, if I'm using GitHub, I can submit a fix to a proje…
Renaissance? Open source has never been less healthy. All the previous social constructs around properly documenting, testing, and releasing stable versions of your code have been swept away. Instead we're faced with the constant churn of semi-functional code, users working in silos and then showing up with patches well after it's too late to give them direction, animated GIFs instead of careful engineering discussio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Github optimized being lazy, and this was appealing, and in doing so they broke most of the technical and social structure that held together open source's ability to produce reliable, stable, well-documented software. And yet, here we are, years after Github optimized being lazy and broke most of the technical and social structure of open source, and we still have hundreds of thousands of usable and awesome open so…
Your core premises are flawed: 1) The internet and the apps built on it still run just fine. There is very little maintainership and investment in core difficult technology development. Most core projects that make up the foundation of the internet subsist on the oft-dwindling maintainership of what you seem to consider to be a legacy generation of engineers. Outside of areas where companies hold direct commercial in…
However, you're essentially taking it as a given that the absolute number of worthwhile projects has dropped thanks to GitHub. If there's convincing evidence of this, I'd honestly like to see it, along with a plausible theory as to why that would be the case. What does, for example, Sourceforge get right that GitHub doesn't? (At least from my anecdotal experience, Sourceforge is in fact full of under-documented, unfinished and effectively abandoned crap to more or less the same degree that GitHub is.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your core premises are flawed: 1) The internet and the apps built on it still run just fine. There is very little maintainership and investment in core difficult technology development. Most core projects that make up the foundation of the internet subsist on the oft-dwindling maintainership of what you seem to consider to be a legacy generation of engineers. Outside of areas where companies hold direct commercial in…
Although I disagree with almost everything you've said in this thread, I appreciate the different perspective and your points are certainly reasonable (ie. have given me something to think about). However, this: >> 3) More people are getting their code out to the world than before Github. > It's the conceit of every generation that they exceed the previous, but this statement (and the implication that this is due to…
If I'd been more precise, I would have said no more code per capita.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Renaissance? Open source has never been less healthy. All the previous social constructs around properly documenting, testing, and releasing stable versions of your code have been swept away. Instead we're faced with the constant churn of semi-functional code, users working in silos and then showing up with patches well after it's too late to give them direction, animated GIFs instead of careful engineering discussio…
Since when were bureaucratized quality standards part of Open Source? --- "GitHub optimized being lazy" -- translation: GitHub enabled more people to get involved with Open Source. There are no-fewer quality-obsessed developers participating in the community as a result of GitHub. There are, however, a lot more people involved, and a lot more code being "churned". The suggestion that the community is suffering as a r…
There is natural attrition of participants in any project; what keeps (or kept) so-called "quality obsessed" developers in abundance were the social structures -- and social currency -- of the communities built around open source projects.
In exchange for stature, learning, and intangible satisfaction, contributors would learn project guidelines, interact with project members, learn to meet the required levels of quality, and over time be subsumed as committers and trusted members of the community. This approach sustained open source for roughly 20-25 years.
However, github's social network structure supplants the traditional communities, instead creating a wholly Github community in which the previous social construct (and social economy) can no longer truly thrive, and instead, the community and social focus is redirected and reinvested in Github itself.
The similarities to the reward mechanisms and value feedback mechanisms of social networks like Facebook are quite strong.
> It sounds to me like you miss the "good old days" when the club was more exclusive.
This seems to be a recurring theme; it sounds to me like justification for cognitive dissonance borne out of a situation where two choices exist:
1) Subscribe to the notion in which one would be a junior contributor in a broad pre-existing world of established engineers, or
2) Ignore the experienced engineers and create a community of self-evaluating peers, writing off the old model as "exclusive" rather than "experienced".
I expect the truth is found in-between those two poles, but reality has trended strongly towards number #2.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your core premises are flawed: 1) The internet and the apps built on it still run just fine. There is very little maintainership and investment in core difficult technology development. Most core projects that make up the foundation of the internet subsist on the oft-dwindling maintainership of what you seem to consider to be a legacy generation of engineers. Outside of areas where companies hold direct commercial in…
You're both arguing by anecdote here. It seems to me self-evident that Github has many more projects on it -- not just forks of existing projects, but original projects, period -- than its predecessors and competitors do. This just about definitionally implies that it has a lot more crap. While it would be hard to prove that Github has a higher percentage of crap on it than its predecessors and competitors, that's ce…
Not just dropped -- they're drying up. I can only speak from anecdote (nobody has paid me to run a study), but while I've seen no dip in usage of my libraries, and I've seen my projects explode with half-baked forks on Github, I've seen mailing list participation and worthwhile code patch submissions drop to very nearly 0.
> What does, for example, Sourceforge get right that GitHub doesn't?
SourceForge essentially died out for modern projects upon the release of Google Code in 2006.
However, what (traditionally) SourceForge and Google Code did right -- and, what projects did in their own hosting for decades before and after that -- was place the project's community in the forefront, and the code in the background.
This meant that documentation, releases, mailing lists and other constituents of a vibrant community project were placed in the forefront, with the code being something that one worked on as part of the community.
By contrast, Github made projects secondary. The code was (originally) always attached to an individual account name. The primary project page was the code itself. Forks existed at the same namespace hierarchy as the projects they forked.
The result was that Github sucked community energy into Github itself, and in doing so, began to redefine the community social constructs in a way that allowed users to maximize social and personal rewards while minimizing work necessary to conform or participate in the project's community.