How GitHub No Longer Works

Post by pbowyer » Fri, Nov 15, 2013, 4:27 PM UTC

strumptrumpet wrote: post #120

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> However, you're essentially taking it as a given that the absolute number of worthwhile projects has dropped thanks to GitHub. 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 s…

Post by bitwalker » Fri, Nov 15, 2013, 4:59 PM UTC

strumptrumpet wrote: post #60

techpeace wrote: post #58

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…

Post by cenhyperion » Mon, Nov 18, 2013, 4:49 AM UTC

z999 wrote: post #134

cenhyperion wrote: post #37

Wow, I'm taking notes on the slide design. Looking forward to the video.

He has an earlier blog post on how he designs his slides. Not extremely informative but csn give you couple of tips on how to get that zach holman look. Iirc it was in response to the how github uses github to build github talk.

Post by Semaphor » Sat, Nov 23, 2013, 4:58 PM UTC

aryastark wrote: post #95

Macha wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only one I recall it being mandatory on is Quora. Most offer Facebook as an alternative. And as a result, I never used Quora.

Spotify was doing it when I tried to join. They apparently changed it later, to not require Facebook. But, you know, first impressions being what they are, I'll never be a subscriber. Trust is hard to recover once lost. Guess Google is going to find that out the hard way.

Post by njharman » Sat, Nov 23, 2013, 5:58 PM UTC

PeterisP wrote: post #101

ben_straub wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that I didn't say salary, I said raises. ;) Every other job I've had uses some sort of stressful review as part of the salary process. You get a good review, your raise is bigger; bad review, smaller raise. This seems like it works, but it actually doesn't. What's the goal of a review? To provide feedback. Shouldn't you be interested in feedback so you can get better, not just so you can get paid more? If so, sh…

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.