Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)

protesilaos.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 73 posts

Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)

#31

Post by thaumasiotes »

defrost wrote: post #25
posix86 wrote: post #19

Unlreated: Is the title correct english?

Yes, particularly as a blog post (with the context of continuous ongoing discussions) Re: is a longstanding abbreviation for * In the Matter of ... * With Regard to ... * In Reference to ... and the article discusses matters arising from the asked question "Why host on Github?".

I assume it's short for in re, which is sort of Latin for "on/in the matter [...]".

Actual Latin uses de to mark the topic of a disquisition (compare de corona, the Latin translation of Demosthenes' speech "on the crown"); I'm not sure why we say in re. It appears to be an early modern legal usage.

Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)

#32

Post by trueismywork »

perihelions wrote: post #12

I 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…

Wealth is often necessary for meaningful freedom.

Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)

#33

Post by lrvick »

ants_everywhere wrote: post #27
jampekka wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 squee…

Yes I agree with your assessment. MSFT has already started putting things like search behind a log in barrier for example. I think it's prudent to mirror to another hosting service, even if it's just a Gitlab or similar instance that is only accessible to the repo author. That way they can always pivot away from GitHub by productionizing the backup.

I will note Codeberg built-in support for automated mirroring from GitHub.

Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)

#34

Post by TachyonicBytes »

agile-gift0262 wrote: post #23

I agree with many of OP's points, but I don't think OP is addressing the suggestion of using Codeberg, which I believe is a reasonable alternative to GitHub. It provides a GitHub-like experience, so it solves the OP's problems with SourceHut. Regarding discoverability, I doubt anyone finds projects through GitHub's search or discoverability features, but rather through a search engine like Google or DDG and online co…

Not many, but I discovered projects, that I use daily, through GitHub's seemingly new "Trending" section.

Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)

#35

Post by firemelt »

this is the reasons why I kinda doesnt like it when an opensource package hosted on gitlab I mean idk if gitlab still foss or opensource company its just have same vibe like redis terraform or any other VC backed open source that try to search for the money

Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)

#36

Post by jasode »

lrvick wrote: post #29
agile-gift0262 wrote: post #23

I agree with many of OP's points, but I don't think OP is addressing the suggestion of using Codeberg, which I believe is a reasonable alternative to GitHub. It provides a GitHub-like experience, so it solves the OP's problems with SourceHut. Regarding discoverability, I doubt anyone finds projects through GitHub's search or discoverability features, but rather through a search engine like Google or DDG and online co…

Codeberg supports account creation and sign-in with GitHub login, so there really are no excuses IMO. One extra click for any existing GitHub user to comment on a Codeberg repo.

>Codeberg supports account creation and sign-in with GitHub login, so there really are no excuses IMO. One extra click for any existing GitHub user to comment on a Codeberg repo.

Your simplification of the steps is incorrect. I just did this "sign-in with Github" workflow and it's not just 1 click. After using Github to authorize Codeberg, it still requires new users to enter a valid email. Codeberg then requires verification of that email address by the user clicking on the url in the email.

(And the email address step above also adds more behind-the-scene steps for me since I always create email aliases for every service to manage spam.)

Not sure what friction is removed by signing in with Github rather than just registering a new account email address directly with Codeberg.

Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)

#37

Post by marginalia_nu »

jampekka wrote: post #20
ants_everywhere wrote: post #13

My 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 squee…

This has already happened though. If worse comes to worst, we'll just move off it like we did when sourceforge went to shit. The neat part of git is that it's inherently decentralized. You can trivially re-point it to a new upstream.

Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)

#38

Post by [deleted] »

lrvick wrote: post #29
agile-gift0262 wrote: post #23

I agree with many of OP's points, but I don't think OP is addressing the suggestion of using Codeberg, which I believe is a reasonable alternative to GitHub. It provides a GitHub-like experience, so it solves the OP's problems with SourceHut. Regarding discoverability, I doubt anyone finds projects through GitHub's search or discoverability features, but rather through a search engine like Google or DDG and online co…

Codeberg supports account creation and sign-in with GitHub login, so there really are no excuses IMO. One extra click for any existing GitHub user to comment on a Codeberg repo.

[deleted]

Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)

#39

Post by carlosperate »

agile-gift0262 wrote: post #23

I agree with many of OP's points, but I don't think OP is addressing the suggestion of using Codeberg, which I believe is a reasonable alternative to GitHub. It provides a GitHub-like experience, so it solves the OP's problems with SourceHut. Regarding discoverability, I doubt anyone finds projects through GitHub's search or discoverability features, but rather through a search engine like Google or DDG and online co…

> Regarding discoverability, I doubt anyone finds projects through GitHub's search or discoverability features, but rather through a search engine like Google or DDG and online communities.

I've found a lot of interesting projects via GitHub search and via GitHub newsfeed (mostly because I follow people with similar interests and they star interesting projects). Google links to discussions in places like online communities, which works quite well too, but Google doesn't seem to rank GitHub very high on search results, even when looking for the exact project name.

Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)

#40

Post by bayindirh »

I don't think the author is painting a correct picture here.

Yes, SourceHut has a different modus operandi compared to GitHub, GitLab, Codeberg et. al when it comes to merging patches. However, this doesn't invalidate Codeberg/GitLab as a viable primary repo and patch collection path.

If the author is so adamant on network effect advantages, they can host a mirror on GitHub with an appropriate README.md pointing folks to right direction.

If the author needs to write a long post to validate themselves about using GitHub, there's no need. At the end of the day, what you say to others doesn't matter much. The biggest wisdom is to not lie to yourself about why you're doing something.

Post reply on HN