21–30 of 48 posts
It's fine if he doesn't like Github, but the condescending attitude towards people that don't mind leaving the terminal isn't doing him any favors.
Strawman. The alternative to using the CLI is not Github. He dislikes the fact that a large % of new users of git are wholly dependent on a proprietary service. This is a very understandable attitude if you are involved in the 'older' open source communities, where people still care about free software in the freedom sense, and do not simply treat open sourcing as a PR advantage. Understand this: If you require contr…
Besides that, nobody would be required to create an account on Github to contribute. The primary repository could be hosted right where it is, with Github available as another avenue of contribution and communication.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think he specifically stressed he's a Free Software advocate. I think the distinction is important.
Well, for me at least, his advocacy for Free Software is irrelevant to his assertion that his open source project should not require a ToS and login to contribute to. It might explain his motivations, but it doesn't invalidate his position, imo. Others may agree or disagree with him (or I) on these things.
Popular OSS such as Firefox and Python still require you to register on their own system before you can submit a bug report. Is that behind a ToS? Yes. Thus, ToS or not is not the issue here. His entire point is his rejection of using any proprietary, for-profit service to run and manage his project -- because he's a FS advocate.
I am not from the Free Software camp, but in the old days, when sourceforge was still popular, I believe any free software hosted on sourceforge would be considered a violation of Free Software.
[1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strawman. The alternative to using the CLI is not Github. He dislikes the fact that a large % of new users of git are wholly dependent on a proprietary service. This is a very understandable attitude if you are involved in the 'older' open source communities, where people still care about free software in the freedom sense, and do not simply treat open sourcing as a PR advantage. Understand this: If you require contr…
It's not a strawman, the statement at the end of his email strongly implies that he considers people using Github to be incapable of using git without it. Besides that, nobody would be required to create an account on Github to contribute. The primary repository could be hosted right where it is, with Github available as another avenue of contribution and communication.
This is true for most people on Github, unfortunately. There's even an oft-repeated name for this phenomenon: "github monoculture".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strawman. The alternative to using the CLI is not Github. He dislikes the fact that a large % of new users of git are wholly dependent on a proprietary service. This is a very understandable attitude if you are involved in the 'older' open source communities, where people still care about free software in the freedom sense, and do not simply treat open sourcing as a PR advantage. Understand this: If you require contr…
It's not a strawman, the statement at the end of his email strongly implies that he considers people using Github to be incapable of using git without it. Besides that, nobody would be required to create an account on Github to contribute. The primary repository could be hosted right where it is, with Github available as another avenue of contribution and communication.
For big projects like Linux or Python, they don't move to Github because they have their own system running for years. They just don't see the benefit and they find their existing mechanism effective. Many projects today still run on Bugzilla, mailing list and IRC. For smaller projects the cost to migrate from older services like Google Code or even from Bitbucket to Github (or sometimes from Google Code to Bitbucket…
This is entirely false, if github shuts down tomorrow you don't lose everything. In fact, most likely you don't lose anything, since the git repo on your computer has everything. This is the only reason I use Github, myself. It's not like the old days of Sourceforge hosted CVS servers where you didn't actually have access to your data.
So... what about using Gitlab ( https://about.gitlab.com/gitlab-ce/ )? It's open source (MIT license), it's a (very polished) clone of Github's functionality and workflow, and it can be self-hosted. Someone saying "please use Github" doesn't (usually) mean they only want, specifically, Github. It means they want a tool with visual forking and merge trees, a code browser that can easily reference different branches an…
edit: You will probably argue why you want to use git but don't want to use a shell. Please don't. If you really want to learn something, try git in a shell for a year (consistently learning, not just getting stuff done with minimal effort). If you start to use `git log` more often than any gui tool, if you merge, fork, and `rebase -i` without thinking about it, then make a decision. And if you reached that point and still think git can live without a shell, please (seriously) come back here and tell us about it.
For big projects like Linux or Python, they don't move to Github because they have their own system running for years. They just don't see the benefit and they find their existing mechanism effective. Many projects today still run on Bugzilla, mailing list and IRC. For smaller projects the cost to migrate from older services like Google Code or even from Bitbucket to Github (or sometimes from Google Code to Bitbucket…
> Github can shut down next year all the sudden and you can lose everything… This is entirely false, if github shuts down tomorrow you don't lose everything. In fact, most likely you don't lose anything , since the git repo on your computer has everything. This is the only reason I use Github, myself. It's not like the old days of Sourceforge hosted CVS servers where you didn't actually have access to your data.
I'm not against github (in fact i like it very much) but issues does seem to impose a little lockin.
So... what about using Gitlab ( https://about.gitlab.com/gitlab-ce/ )? It's open source (MIT license), it's a (very polished) clone of Github's functionality and workflow, and it can be self-hosted. Someone saying "please use Github" doesn't (usually) mean they only want, specifically, Github. It means they want a tool with visual forking and merge trees, a code browser that can easily reference different branches an…
Yes, the command line has its place.
Yes, some of us like GUIs even though we can do CLIs.
And using a tool that simplifies some of the trickiness of software development (filing issues, code reviews, etc) is a pretty welcome tool in my bag of tricks. An open source issue tracker is fine, but with his negative attitude towards web browsers, I assume any web-based tool that attempts to get in his software development process would be met with some level of disdain.
Furthermore, if this is as important as implied, wouldn't that Github repo become an important source of progress for the project, without infringing in any way on Eric's desire to NOT use (or depend on) Github?