Live data from Hacker News

Before GitHub

lucumr.pocoo.org

31–40 of 255 posts

Re: Before GitHub

#31

> What GitHub Gave Us To me one of the clear things that GitHub gave us was a structure around a person rather than a project. To me it felt liberating to quickly create a repository attached to my name than it was to go through the (what felt to me) very serious process of coming up with a project name and reserving it on sourceforge just to get a cvs or svn repository (along with website, mailing lists, issue track…

[flagged]

Re: Before GitHub

#32
This “slowly dying” effect is what happens to every company that gets acquired by big monster slug companies like Microsoft.

What Microsoft acquisitions still have any of their original spark left in them? Or Oracle? Or IBM? Or Google? Etc…

Hell, some Microsoft originals from inside the company like Xbox have even lost their edge.

Money is great and I’m sure I’d take the big check, too, but I’m surprised more tech founders don’t think of their legacy in this way when they decide to sell out.

It’s considered a grand accomplishment to essentially lead the wonderful thing you created to its slow demise and hand it over to apathetic quarterly earnings zombies.

Re: Before GitHub

#33
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…

I wonder what tradeoffs make Git faster for large repository. Though for a long time that excluded large blobs.

Re: Before GitHub

#34

> What GitHub Gave Us To me one of the clear things that GitHub gave us was a structure around a person rather than a project. To me it felt liberating to quickly create a repository attached to my name than it was to go through the (what felt to me) very serious process of coming up with a project name and reserving it on sourceforge just to get a cvs or svn repository (along with website, mailing lists, issue track…

[flagged]

Huh? The usual pattern is that experiments belong to a user and then they graduate to having their own org iff they grow enough maintainers for that to make sense. How is that toxic or self-centered? It's just like "here's a place to do low-stakes experiments in public view". It's not particularly about ego or selfishness or whatever.

Re: Before GitHub

#35
post #14

I remember this old thing called Bugs Everywhere -- it was a bug/issue tracker which actually lived inside your hg repository. I wonder if we could standardize on something like that? or git notes with an issues ref? or something magical like that? Then it's BYOR -- bring your own renderer. Trivial CLI bugtrackers, agentic nonsense, pretty web stuff, whatever and the data lives in the repo.

I've often wondered why no one has built an issue tracker with Git notes, or if one exists, why it's not widespread.

https://github.com/git-bug/git-bug

And probably the network/black-hole effect of platforms like GitHub, Linkedin and the like are hard to achieve with fully distributed solutions, all the more when the other side is backed by huge capital which absolutely love concentration of power.

Re: Before GitHub

#36
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…

Now is a great time for somebody to buy fossilhub.com and create a new community.

Re: Before GitHub

#37
post #9

> But maybe the most underappreciated thing GitHub did was archival work: GitHub became a library. It became an index of a huge part of the software commons because even abandoned projects remained findable. I think this is a bad thing actually. Having something that's centralized but helpful-99%-of-the-time atrophies our collective archival skills. If everything had to be seeded by someone to keep it alive, everyone…

I don't agree with this. Github has existed for years and one of the reasons developers trust it is that they never monetized their "archival" work yet (TBD with all the new Copilot features).

The alternative would be many sites, each one of them with their own DMCA rules.

What would be the better alternative?

Re: Before GitHub

#40

If it wasn’t for SourceForge I’m not sure my life would’ve ended up where it is! They use to promote projects they liked and ended up putting Waterfox on their front page a few times. Really sad when they started blasting people with ads and swapping out installers with adware for popular projects. By that time I moved to Microsoft’s CodePlex, if anyone else remembers that? Felt like I was the only one using it at th…

I also remember SourceForge fondly, before the ad infested thing.

Specially, I remember not "getting" Github at some point. Bitbucket had mercurial support, sourceforge had SVN, and all the Cool projects lived in SF (I'm talking mid/late 2000s).

The first time I navigated into a github project and just saw the code three I was puzzled. (SF was centered on the project/product while GH focused on the code.

Post reply on HN