There are many software collectives offering Gitea or similar for free or almost free, so there has to be a good reason for giving away one's code to MICROS~1.
Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)
51–60 of 73 posts
Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)
#52I 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 folk…
[deleted]
Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)
#53The 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).
The grandparent does not present a dichotomy, let alone a false one. It says that when you are not using email patches, the network effect of the platform (like Gitea which you present as if it was explicitly excluded by the grandparent) is important.
Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)
#54But the network effect could lead to something like the next xz backdoor
If xz would have been hosted another place, what could have been prevented?
>The technical reason for not opting for such alternatives is that I will not be getting enough contributions there.
Yes.
Sudden interest from multiple people in certain pull request raise suspicions if you only have a contributions.
Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)
#55My 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 $MSFT is a publicly-traded organisations with legally financ…
Using M$ bandwidth and storage isn't the same as giving them control over the project though. It's git. You can migrate elsewhere as and when the rug pull happens. Issue tracking might be slightly harder to migrate, but even that might offer an option to clear the backlog and only bring along the really important stuff.
Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)
#56Protesilaos is a legend and I agree with everything he's said on this post.
I myself put all my projects on GitHub because of visibility and the free CI to run tests on Windows/Mac/Linux which is a godsend... but I also normally keep an alternative upstream on all my projects with https://www.opencode.net (it's as easy to do that as adding a new remote with git) so I feel like I have zero dependency on MSFT, all the services they provide to me for free are just "nice-to-have" things. But they are very nice indeed.
The only danger I see is that GitHub becomes so widespread that other tools start only integrating with it (instead of using pure "git" integration). People are saying NPM already does this (I don't know, I don't do NPM)? That's a real danger, but hopefully other projects will have the common sense to not fall into this trap. For now, at least, I feel like that's not been a big problem.
Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)
#57Wonderful article. Protesilaos does great work, and doesn't indulge in popularity contests, or shy away from uncomfortable realities as he sees them (which apparently is difficult for some HN readers). Keep it up, Prot.
Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)
#58My 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 might be an ignorant statement on my part - but I don't see how I am "locked-in" to using github.
If I have any software to share on a github page - it is simple a git repository. Whats stopping me moving that over to another web host?
If the projects are private -- can host them on my own server... or the company I work for.
All github really has it popularity. If you have created something really, really cool - it might not get the recognition if not on github. However, there are plenty of ways to advertise it - like on here, or other media outlets.
Not disagreeing with you and, yes, maybe I am missing the point here. I was sad when I heard M$ owned Github and I would not be surprised if there is a long tern goal in relation to the `EEE`
I work for companies that are all in on M$ products.. not just Office, etc.. but the development tools like SQL Server, .NET etc. Outside I will always push for alternatives.
EDIT -- added extra.. I think it will be interesting when large projects start to have issues with the slow M$ changes with github and decide to move away, or create their own. For example, the linux kernel! That would be pretty big news and might start rippling effect.
Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 $MSFT is a publicly-traded organisations with legally financ…
Using M$ bandwidth and storage isn't the same as giving them control over the project though. It's git. You can migrate elsewhere as and when the rug pull happens. Issue tracking might be slightly harder to migrate, but even that might offer an option to clear the backlog and only bring along the really important stuff.
> It's git.
Not really... Github offers bug-tracker and CI as well as "pages", user management, various automation APIs, Web access, of course... Also, integrations! Want to publish your documentation to readthedocs dot com? -- You need integration with that site! Some really shady languages also now want you to use GitHub Actions to publish packages "to ensure authenticity" (there was a thread on yc just a week or so ago). GitHub can also serve as a built releases repository.
Github tries very hard to make sure users don't migrate elsewhere.
By supporting GitHub (through hosting your code in it) the way it is right now, you will be helping MS to train their editor enhancing features. Bug-testing the free tier of their paid services...
I'm not sure the deal is worth it. I'm much more pro divorcing the private interest from the public good. I'd rather my taxes paid for free software hosting.
Re: Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom)
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You're correct about the Latin origin and legal usage, "in the matter .." is strictly correct.
That said, English as a language absorbs and morphs borrow words and phrases like few others and re has moved out of legal only and into common office and other usage where many are no longer tied to a strict law reading.