Live data from Hacker News

Before GitHub

lucumr.pocoo.org

111–120 of 255 posts

Re: Before GitHub

#111
post #64

I think I was one of the first people to try Flask. I learned Python so I could take advantage of AppEngine for free and easy modern hosting, which put me in the right spot when Flask launched. I've long been an admirer of Armin's, and recognized his domain before I clicked the link. As he points out, in those days, you didn't default to GitHub. His post is a response to Mitchell's, from just a few hours ago. I'm imp…

> His post is a response to Mitchell's, from just a few hours ago. Is there a link to Mitchell's post somewhere? I can't find one in the article.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47939579

Re: Before GitHub

#112
post #21

I am still so salty that Git won out for the average project over Fossil. Sure Git has some performance advantages for massive codebases like the Linux Kernel, but the vast majority of projects will never run into performance limits from their VCS. Fossil’s internal tools (wiki, forum, tickets , etc) are just so useful to have versioned with your code in one file. I use Fossil for all my freelance work and it so easi…

> It can still change, I hate the notion that because Git is so culturally embedded we couldn’t ever switch. Fossil makes it super easy to switch and the workflow is actually easier coming from Git. I was exposed to Mercurial before Git and I stubbornly tried to advocate for it over Git for a while. BitBucket, at the time, gave Github a good run for their money and had great Mercurial support and was what I preferred…

You might like pijul if you like darcs

Re: Before GitHub

#113
post #102

> Regardless of whether GitHub is here to stay or projects find new homes, what I would like to see is some public, boring, well-funded archive for Open Source software. Something with the power of an endowment or public funding to keep it afloat. Something whose job is not to win the developer productivity market but just to make sure that the most important things we create do not disappear. There is already such a…

Codeberg?

Re: Before GitHub

#114
post #102

> Regardless of whether GitHub is here to stay or projects find new homes, what I would like to see is some public, boring, well-funded archive for Open Source software. Something with the power of an endowment or public funding to keep it afloat. Something whose job is not to win the developer productivity market but just to make sure that the most important things we create do not disappear. There is already such a…

They are getting access to a supercomputer soon, and will be scanning all their archive for licensing information (using scancode and ort), security information, and other metadata.

Re: Before GitHub

#116

This got me thinking about code.google.com, I can't believe Google dropped the ball that hard.

To add salt to the wound: https://killedbygoogle.com/

Damn Tenor's run by Google? I was always afraid this day would come. Guess its time to be relegated to the awfulness that is Giphy for the built-in GIF picker in applications.

Re: Before GitHub

#117
post #18
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weirdly, I also have fond memories of Trac despite absolutely despising it at the time for “doing too much and excelling at nothing as a result”. I guess that award goes to Gitlab now, which I will probably also remember fondly.

I like Gitlab fine by ignoring pretty much everything it does other than host the source code and let me view READMEs in the browser (and for work, also merge requests). In general the more I have to use anything other than those, the more frustrated I get, which was also how I felt about Github in the past. I'm not sure I've ever had a non-frustrating experience when trying to set up a CI pipeline on any platform, s…

> I'm not sure I've ever had a non-frustrating experience when trying to set up a CI pipeline on any platform, so I guess Gitlab's CI isn't any better or worse than others in that regard.

Honestly, Gitlab's CI is one of its killer features.

I really enjoy Gitlab CI.

But, nearly everything else (kubernetes management, AST, AI "DUO", work items, milestones, snippets, workspaces, "operations", "security dashboards", "value stream managements", "service desk") - ugh, awful.

I guess some of the artifact repository stuff is nice, but like; their terraform repository is probably the worst of all choices, all the downsides of the HTTP state backend and no upside..

It's so hit and miss; but! the CI is actually good..

Re: Before GitHub

#118
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Very strange take. A lot of software is built on trust and the people behind it. Hence why the social aspect of Github was so important to a lot of open source software.

I don't think it was important. It just came at a time when sourceforge was being heavily enshittified.

Re: Before GitHub

#120
IMHO the problem is always the same. Social networks (and I consider Github as one in this discussion) tend toward centralization and hence monopolization. But monopolization tends towards enshittification. It happens again and again. There's a new cool player, it grows, it's not the cool player anymore. Rinse and repeat.

Unfortunately I don't have a clever solution (to the social aspect of the problem).

Post reply on HN