[dead]
Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)
11–20 of 73 posts
Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)
#12I think the root thing I disagree with in this essay is whether (GNU definition) freedom has anything to do with successful, thriving economic markets. No; they're completely orthogonal. The logic of this article might suggest Shenzhen is the freest place on earth—a fast-moving, healthy marketplace with a vast diversity of economic actors to transact with with low friction. Yes, but also no.
- "Freedom and diversity go hand-in-hand. We empower people to express their individuality. The cumulative effect is a richer corpus of shared resources, from which we can all draw from to elevate our experience."
This is like a definition of wealth, not of freedom.
Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)
#13My general point of view is that FOSS software is a public good, and that we should aim to maximize the availability of that public good.
This point of view contrasts with other views, for example I don't see much value in ideological purity for its own sake.
For that reason, I think it's a bit foolish to dissuade people from hosting on GitHub as long as Microsoft is subsidizing bandwidth and hosting costs. You might as well stick MSFT with the bill.
But if you go that route, you do kinda have to keep your eyes open to the real possibility of an eventual rug pool. Or even just that MSFT will make incremental cost saving changes that render some uses of GitHub increasingly unusable over time.
Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)
#14> I do not blame SourceHut, as they clearly state they are still in alpha
The decision to stick to the clunky email interface isn't due to stage name
Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)
#15The network effect really is important if you don't use email for patches and want to capture an audience greater than your typical zealot coder (of which I am one). Github makes it easy for non-coders to submit documentation, test their changes, and genuinely be part of something that they are not an expert in. Sure there are disadvantages there too in terms of the quality of the submissions, but the benefits of a b…
Shouldn't we call it a "network prison" in that case? :)
It's not a prison, you can leave whenever you want and take with you everything that's supported outside github. Git clone and go. The features that attracted you to begin with still attract you, though, so maybe you don't want to.
Compared to e.g. moving a team from one mail server to another, moving from github is remarkably simple.
Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shouldn't we call it a "network prison" in that case? :)
It's not a prison, you can leave whenever you want and take with you everything that's supported outside github. Git clone and go. The features that attracted you to begin with still attract you, though, so maybe you don't want to. Compared to e.g. moving a team from one mail server to another, moving from github is remarkably simple.
Thank you sensei, I think that I do understand now.
Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why wouldn't this possible on, say, GitLab or Bitbucket?
All of my new stuff is on GitLab. I have seen zero interest in any of my projects, even the ones that were carried over from Github (which are archived). It could just be that I am a dull coder, but I'm leaning more on the notion that discovery is hard in GitLab.
This, and worse: I’ve stopped using libraries that migrated to GitLab in my own personal projects, because I just can’t be bothered to check for updates there, or deal with the UX, or log in to report bugs because I don’t really want to create another account.
I remember when SourceForge was a thing, and GitHub was just tremendously superior feature-wise and community-wise, with new issues and PRs for stuff coming in daily. GitLab, Codeberg, etc. may have 90% feature parity, but they’re not anywhere near the ease of interaction.
(I’ve also set up a Gitea instance on my NAS to mirror my own stuff, some GitHub projects that might be controversial—like emulators-and stuff from GitLab and Codeberg. And guess what, I seldom use that as well to keep track of external projects.)
Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)
#18The network effect really is important if you don't use email for patches and want to capture an audience greater than your typical zealot coder (of which I am one). Github makes it easy for non-coders to submit documentation, test their changes, and genuinely be part of something that they are not an expert in. Sure there are disadvantages there too in terms of the quality of the submissions, but the benefits of a b…
This presents a false dichotomy (Github vs email patches), when there exist a whole host of self-hosted options (Gitea for one).
Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)
#19Unlreated: Is the title correct english?
Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)
#20My general point of view is that FOSS software is a public good, and that we should aim to maximize the availability of that public good. This point of view contrasts with other views, for example I don't see much value in ideological purity for its own sake. For that reason, I think it's a bit foolish to dissuade people from hosting on GitHub as long as Microsoft is subsidizing bandwidth and hosting costs. You might…
Short term maybe. But Github has already a kind of monopoly on git web interfaces. Package managers (e.g. npm) already have preferential treatment for it, and adding "github" to a search term is quite a standard way to search for source code.
My guess is that sooner or later we'll see EEE. GitHub will slowly get more and more tied with MSFT technology (already ongoing), and at some point MSFT will want to start squeezing profits with their lock-in one way or another.
IMHO Microsoft shouldn't have been allowed to buy GitHub. In general it's really not a good situation that so few megacorporations dominate the software industry. But the regulation is broken.