271–280 of 320 posts
Reading the issue, it seems that one of the problems is a single directory with lots and lots of files in it, which is something of a pathological case for Git. Now, this could be "fixed" by splitting the files in that directory into subdirectories, but the one giant directory will still exist in all the past commits. So would this actually fix anything, or just keep it from getting worse?
GitTorrent: http://blog.printf.net/articles/2015/05/29/announcing-gittor... Imagine a world where GitTorrent is fully developed, includes support for issue tracking, and has a nice GUI client that makes the experience on-par with browsing github.com. I mention this not as an "Everybody bail out of GitHub and run to GitTorrent!!!" sort of statement, because I believe GitHub's response here was excellent and confidence…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case the difference between 'abuse' and fair use may be a homebrew dev that works for github. I would expect that to be a perk of most places that I work. I've run tor exit nodes and repo hosting when I worked for ISPs and Datacenters while at the same time shuting customers down who do the same. The difference being that I had that conversation with my boss and said, 'this will violate our normal terms of se…
Hey, I run 2 middle relays (~80-90mb/s bandwidth total) on cheap VPS's, but was thinking of upping bandwidth and hosting an exi on some dedicated hardwaret. Do you have any tips for running an exit node (legally and technically)? If you want, you can email me (link in profile). Thanks!
Everything you need is online but you'd have to find it for yourself and make decisions about the best way for you to do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was astonished at how selfish/myopic/whatever alloy's response was. To be blunt, you're abusing the shit out of SOMEONE ELSE'S product that you're not even paying for. Your first question shouldn't be to see what Github can do for you to make it so you don't have to make changes. You should be falling over yourself investigating all available avenues for reducing load. It's an incredibly entitled way to think about…
I don't know, it sounded to me like he just didn't totally understand what Github was saying. By the end of the thread, it seemed like everyone was agreeing. I wouldn't be comfortable using words like "selfish" to describe any of what I read. I certainly don't think the barb about your willingness to employ people who write things on Github issues threads that you disagree with is helping anyone understand any part o…
Now granted, I'd try to give them a chance to step away from that statement and let them show me that they are interested in understanding the issue and interested in reducing their impact on the product. I'm okay if they don't yet know HOW, but if they basically just throw up their hands, say it's someone else's problem, and leave it at that then no. In fact, hell no. I'm not interested. It's shows a level of entitlement and a lack of interest in their craft and I will not subject my team to someone like that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I certainly don't think the barb about your willingness to employ people who write things on Github issues threads that you disagree with is helping anyone understand any part of this situation. It seems to be one of HN's go-to insults. "Look at this person's behavior, I would never hire them," as if everyone wants to work at your startup.
I wonder how many of the people that say that actually are employed in a position where they get to make hiring decisions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I certainly don't think the barb about your willingness to employ people who write things on Github issues threads that you disagree with is helping anyone understand any part of this situation. It seems to be one of HN's go-to insults. "Look at this person's behavior, I would never hire them," as if everyone wants to work at your startup.
> as if everyone wants to work at your startup. Do you really think that when people say "I would never hire that person" that there is an implication of "everyone wants to be hired by me (and by extension my company)?"
Nailed it. Just because someone, a team, or a company has hiring criteria doesn't mean they assume everyone wants to work at their company. It means they have an idea of who they are looking for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, it sounded to me like he just didn't totally understand what Github was saying. By the end of the thread, it seemed like everyone was agreeing. I wouldn't be comfortable using words like "selfish" to describe any of what I read. I certainly don't think the barb about your willingness to employ people who write things on Github issues threads that you disagree with is helping anyone understand any part o…
> I certainly don't think the barb about your willingness to employ people who write things on Github issues threads that you disagree with is helping anyone understand any part of this situation. It seems to be one of HN's go-to insults. "Look at this person's behavior, I would never hire them," as if everyone wants to work at your startup.
I wonder how many times CocoaPods has ruined someone's day/night on some GH team. I wonder how many dinners some mom or dad has missed with their kids because their service alarms are going apeshit. I don't think it's hyperbole to say that if you are a top 10 repo at Github, you are responsible for ruining individuals days and taking time away from their families if you are hammering the system.
Now, these are entirely my opinion and I'm not saying alloy is bad at what they do. I'm saying that is a collection of attitudes that I'm not going to put on my team.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had the same impression from alloy's response. I've basically read it as "hi ho we will not change anything". And it had this passive agressive ring to it, with the hand clapping and the hurray in the beginning and the stone walling in effect.
Had exactly the same feeling. I felt bad for the GH employee who responded. He was helpful and thoughtful, made it clear what the problem was, offered advice and promised to make whatever's possible on their end... ...only to have someone come up and act like a paying customer whose expectations weren't being met. He answered suggestions by saying something that comes down to "I don't understand, can you repeat pleas…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was astonished at how selfish/myopic/whatever alloy's response was. To be blunt, you're abusing the shit out of SOMEONE ELSE'S product that you're not even paying for. Your first question shouldn't be to see what Github can do for you to make it so you don't have to make changes. You should be falling over yourself investigating all available avenues for reducing load. It's an incredibly entitled way to think about…
I think you could assume better of people. His response was maybe a bit tone deaf, but text is a very poor way of communicating mood and circumstance. There are any number of creditable explanations from tiredness to language skills that could make sense of the response you're offended by. fwiw: "I would have a really hard time working for someone whose first inclination was always towards criticism over accommodatio…
My biggest problem is that I can't imagine a time, even if I don't understand the problem, where I would say that I'm not interested in essentially not abusing a free system that can't handle my load. He basically said he had better things to spend his time or money on. That shows a motivation/attitude that would likely be there regardless of the issue or if they understood it. That's his knee jerk reaction, which I would say is probably his most honest, and it seems very selfish and not empathitic to the GH team at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> as if everyone wants to work at your startup. Do you really think that when people say "I would never hire that person" that there is an implication of "everyone wants to be hired by me (and by extension my company)?"
> Do you really think that when people say "I would never hire that person" that there is an implication of "everyone wants to be hired by me (and by extension my company)?" Nailed it. Just because someone, a team, or a company has hiring criteria doesn't mean they assume everyone wants to work at their company. It means they have an idea of who they are looking for.
its the difference between buying a packet of your favorite snacks and telling all your friends what your favorite snack is..
you probably expect them to like the same snack.