181–190 of 585 posts
> If it is, as you claim, permissible to train the model (and allow users to generate code based on that model) on any code whatsoever and not be bound by any licensing terms, why did you choose to only train Copilot's model on FOSS? For example, why are your Microsoft Windows and Office codebases not in your training set? This is my favorite question about Copilot ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> refusal to use Git[1] due to its complexity I kind of like this friction. If a software developer finds git too complex, that’s an important signal that I should minimize my exposure to them. I’d never work in a team that dumb, and I wouldn’t want any dependencies on their code. Of course there are other reasons not to use git, but complexity is not one.
I say this as a senior dev with 8+ years of experience working with git: git is nightmarishly complex. Highly stateful, insanely large CLI surface, huge amounts of terminology/concepts relative to the complexity of what you're actually trying to do with it. I've learned to navigate its waters over the years, fully appreciate the difference between git and GitHub, etc etc, and I don't blame anybody for being scared aw…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> refusal to use Git[1] due to its complexity I kind of like this friction. If a software developer finds git too complex, that’s an important signal that I should minimize my exposure to them. I’d never work in a team that dumb, and I wouldn’t want any dependencies on their code. Of course there are other reasons not to use git, but complexity is not one.
I say this as a senior dev with 8+ years of experience working with git: git is nightmarishly complex. Highly stateful, insanely large CLI surface, huge amounts of terminology/concepts relative to the complexity of what you're actually trying to do with it. I've learned to navigate its waters over the years, fully appreciate the difference between git and GitHub, etc etc, and I don't blame anybody for being scared aw…
I blame developers and even most users for being too scared to use it. I think it’s perfectly normal to be scared of it while using it.
I think all users of technology should have some basic competence. Like every human should be able to be a basic Unix user, every human is capable of using git. And every developer should be capable.
GitHub is a business and currently provides free storage and a pretty nice interface to it. It’s easy to say “our rights are being stripped away” but the view that businesses should operate like non profits or government services with the common good in mind is ludicrous!
My reasons though are not because of Copilot. It is because I do not use git for my own projects (I self-host Fossil and mirror on Chisel). But if someone else makes mirrors of my code on GitHub (or CodeBerg or SourceHut) then I do not have an objection to that (making more mirrors on different services may be better, anyways; unfortunately if you are using git then a header will be prepended to the file before computing the hash, which makes the integrity more difficult (although it is still possible, since the header is predictable (as far as I know))).
Seeing a few examples of output from Copilot (although I have not used it myself and do not intend to do so), they do not seem to be a very good quality. So, I think that it is not worth it, even regardless of licensing issues.
If you do move your project to another service, you should please use one which does not require JavaScripts enabled to be able to view the code (even if other functions do not work). Ideally it should also work without CSS. (For these reasons, GitLab is not acceptable.)
This isn't very compelling to me. SourceForge went bad ... and everyone left. That doesn't seem like a bad thing and there's no reason for me to think any given site / service will or won't go bad too. I expect that for any number of reasons I might need to move from one site to the next. The rest too is kinda hollow to me. The fact that they're for profit doesn't upset me. I figured they wanted to make a profit when…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> people can send me pull requests by email. Great, you already lost half of them.
Honestly it's not that bad. If you don't insist on getting correctly-formatted email for git-am, most people manage fine. They'll send you the output of git-diff, a git-bundle, or attach the files they changed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> refusal to use Git[1] due to its complexity I kind of like this friction. If a software developer finds git too complex, that’s an important signal that I should minimize my exposure to them. I’d never work in a team that dumb, and I wouldn’t want any dependencies on their code. Of course there are other reasons not to use git, but complexity is not one.
My take is completely opposite from yours. I think it's great when someone "gets" that git is an extremely powerful and capable tool with a horribly unintuitive user interface. Whether you call that "complexity" or just "terrible UX", to me that's a sign that someone has good instincts regarding the risks associated with this kind of "complexity". Whether I agree that a decision to shun git for that reason is justifi…
Different strokes for different folks and not everyone is capable of working together. Comically, people like you would find your comment also arrogant and stay away from both of us.
For what it’s worth, I work on empathy quite a bit and my filter is based on the idea that it saves both me and the other party pain. I don’t want to work in a team where developers are tolerated giving up on super basic technologies like git (what else isn’t tolerated “oh, tcp/ip is just too complex for developers, I give up”) and they probably don’t want me to work with them.
I think one of the best things about technology is that people have great capability to solve problems. Giving up is a bad characteristic. Asking for help is important. Having teams of various skill sets is important. But giving up on basic things instead of getting help and figuring it out is bad as a permanent state for a team.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> refusal to use Git[1] due to its complexity I kind of like this friction. If a software developer finds git too complex, that’s an important signal that I should minimize my exposure to them. I’d never work in a team that dumb, and I wouldn’t want any dependencies on their code. Of course there are other reasons not to use git, but complexity is not one.
You could miss out on some good junior developers if you pick one thing they are ignorant about and reject them because of it. There are plenty of bright junior developers who don't know everything, have opinions on things that they think they know, but will work hard and pick things up once they get some time at it. Of course, if they outright refuse to use something then that's another story.
To clarify, I’m not criticizing not knowing git. Lots of people don’t know git. I’m criticizing the decision not to learn git and being unwilling to learn it due to its “complexity.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to teach a coding bootcamp. I had over 100 students over about 2 years, and ran into this constantly despite my best effort to explain that git != github from day one. We even did an exercise where we just used git locally first and then later (on a different day) showed how you can push to github. It didn't seem to matter. People just decided that git = github and couldn't let go of that.
git --> github porn --> pornhub best explanation of github for noobs
"Porn" is a genre of video and YouTube is better known than pornhub.