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

41–50 of 73 posts

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

#41

Post by bayindirh »

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…

> My guess is that sooner or later we'll see EEE.

They're using every open repository to train CoPilot and sell your code and derivations of it $10/pop. Do you need any more steps?

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

#42

Post by pm215 »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #37
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…

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.

The git repo, sure. It's all the workflow stuff around it that is harder to migrate -- issue reporting, what workflow you use for code review and merging changes, CI, etc. Those too can be moved, but I wouldn't use the word "trivial" -- there's potentially a lot of work there with migrating old issue data across, figuring out what changes to everybody's dev workflow the new platform will require versus what can stay the same, adjusting or rewriting CI configs, and so on.

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

#43

Post by mrd3v0 »

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…

This utilitarian point of view quickly crumbles once it stops naïvely looking at profit-driven organisations as anything but what they actually are: money-making machines. The first and foremost goal is the money, not the software, certainly not the end this POV claims the means maximise for. It is not a possibility, it is a certainty, especially given that $MSFT is a publicly-traded organisations with legally financial obligations to its shareholders.

Framing actual long-term sustainble practices and policies as "ideological purity" is misleading at best and a textbook example of a strawman at worst.

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

#45

Post by aulin »

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…

Given the sad state of affairs with search engines these days I most often go straight to github for code related searches.

And, as much as I hate websites profiling me, I discovered plenty of emacs packages I use every day from github suggestions.

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

#46

Post by pasc1878 »

trueismywork wrote: post #32
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.

But not sufficient

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

#47

Post by oefrha »

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…

The typical GitHub project I end up using as a tool or a dependency: hundreds to thousands of stars, a good number of issues and PRs, signaling at least a moderate degree of battle-hardening. (Star farming is a thing but I don’t think it’s a big problem in general.)

The typical GitLab project I land on through a search engine: ~0 stars, extremely low issue/MR engagement. Even when it’s like the only game in town for a moderately popular use case. Hardly distinguishable from my private repos in terms of human involvement.

Codeberg is only going to be worse.

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

#48

Post by madeofpalk »

mrd3v0 wrote: post #43
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…

This utilitarian point of view quickly crumbles once it stops naïvely looking at profit-driven organisations as anything but what they actually are: money-making machines. The first and foremost goal is the money, not the software, certainly not the end this POV claims the means maximise for. It is not a possibility, it is a certainty, especially given that $MSFT is a publicly-traded organisations with legally financ…

Parent fully acknowledges this. If anything, bringing up "but Github makes money!" is a strawman, as the risks associated with this was already aknowledged. Why is the Free and Open Source community so alergic to anything making money? We all understand that Github and Microsoft are companies that exist to make money. Pointing that out is the "I am very intelligent" https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-som...

This whole article explains how, for the authors worldview, using Github is the long-term sustainable practice for their software.

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

#49

Post by madeofpalk »

sesm wrote: post #26
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…

MS is already squeezing profits from Github with CI (Github Actions).

How is charging for compute "squeezing profits"? It's surprising how free Github Actions is.

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

#50

Post by madeofpalk »

cnity wrote: post #18
tetris11 wrote: post #2

The network effect really is important if you don't use email for patches and want to capture an audience greater than your typical zealot coder (of which I am one). Github makes it easy for non-coders to submit documentation, test their changes, and genuinely be part of something that they are not an expert in. Sure there are disadvantages there too in terms of the quality of the submissions, but the benefits of a b…

This presents a false dichotomy (Github vs email patches), when there exist a whole host of self-hosted options (Gitea for one).

> This was the case even when SourceHut was the “official” source and GitHub was a mirror (I also have a GitLab mirror, which probably never received a single contribution): the vast majority of the contributions were on the GitHub mirror, while SourceHut was adding friction to my maintenance work.
Post reply on HN