Re: Why Host Emacs Packages on GitHub? (Microsoft vs Freedom) • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by lrvick » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 11:49 AM UTC

jasode wrote: post #36

lrvick wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ve…

Not having to set another password. That is the biggest PITA that makes people groan when creating new accounts.

Passwordless FIDO2 is of course the best solution, not OIDC.

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

#62

Post by crabbone » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 11:50 AM UTC

I want to comment on comparing things that seem similar, but aren't.

In particular, OP wants readers to believe that taking drugs developed by "big pharma" is the same, or is morally equivalent to hosting one's project on GitHub.

The problem with this is that the relationship between the drug manufacture and the drug user isn't the same as with the repository service and the user, and in a very important way.

* By using the drug the user doesn't contribute anything back to the manufacturer beside the monetary compensation. The equivalent of repository service would've been a drug user who agrees to run experiment for the company developing the drug in exchange for the drug. Such things do happen, especially in desperate cases... but, certainly aren't the norm of pharma company vs drug user relationship.

* Pharma companies are heavily regulated, with lots and lots of drug users protections in place. If a pharma company is found to have walked back on the safety or other promise about a particular drug -- there's a good chance they'll be taken to court, and, hopefully will have to pay reparations. GitHub, on the other hand, makes no promises to the non-paying customers, and, like a famous jedi, will force choke you when they alter the deal they made with you, while telling you to prey they don't alter the deal any further.

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

#63

Post by bayindirh » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 11:52 AM UTC

crabbone wrote: post #59

exe34 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

> I'd rather my taxes paid for free software hosting.

Oh, that's socialism/communism/!capitalism hence bad. /s

P.S.: I'm strongly on the same page with you. Corporations are present to make money, and they always try to differentiate them with closed secret sauce, which is very incompatible with Free and Open Source Software.

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

#64

Post by xandrius » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:00 PM UTC

rcarmo wrote: post #17

tetris11 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of my new stuff is on GitLab. I have seen zero interest in any of my projects, even the ones that were carried over from Github (which are archived). It could just be that I am a dull coder, but I'm leaning more on the notion that discovery is hard in GitLab.

This, and worse: I’ve stopped using libraries that migrated to GitLab in my own personal projects, because I just can’t be bothered to check for updates there, or deal with the UX, or log in to report bugs because I don’t really want to create another account. I remember when SourceForge was a thing, and GitHub was just tremendously superior feature-wise and community-wise, with new issues and PRs for stuff coming in…

Sounds like you don't have w GitLab account and don't visit it frequently enough to get used to it?

I mean we can't really complain when alternatives exist, have 90%+ be feature parity but they are slightly different in terms of UX. Isn't that basically summarising FOSS? You trade a bit of UI/UX for the freedom and openness.

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

#65

Post by Mashimo » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:10 PM UTC

croes wrote: post #54

Mashimo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sounds more like you get less eyes overall on your code. But the attacker will spend the same energy on it.

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

#66

Post by thaumasiotes » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:59 PM UTC

defrost wrote: post #60

thaumasiotes wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "in the matter .." is strictly correct.

Is it? That was my question.

Latin in means in or on, and res means thing, but that doesn't make in re valid Latin for the English phrase "in the matter [of ...]", any more than quomodo pendet would be valid Latin for the English phrase "how's it hanging?".

For the meaning expressed by "re" in office usage, I'd be more likely to use "wrt", which has the benefits of being English and making sense when read aloud.

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

#67

Post by defrost » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 1:42 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #66

defrost wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "in the matter .." is strictly correct. Is it? That was my question. Latin in means in or on, and res means thing, but that doesn't make in re valid Latin for the English phrase "in the matter [of ...]", any more than quomodo pendet would be valid Latin for the English phrase "how's it hanging?". For the meaning expressed by "re" in office usage, I'd be more likely to use "wrt", which has the benefits of being Engl…

Bearing in mind that I'm recalling back 40 years and not looking anything up, it's my recollection that the legal usage in English law is "in the matter of" with the Latin "re" being a contraction of a longer phrase ...

When I said strictly correct I meant that was what was taught in pre law as the correct reading of "re:" when seen .. it's barbaric contractions all the way back to proper Roman law ~ 400 CE I suspect and I'm no learned Latin scholar - I faked my way through it on the STEM side of campus and only ventured into Arts to watch theatre and listen to music.

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

#68

Post by csdreamer7 » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 4:27 PM UTC

A lot of you are not taking about the biggest reason to avoid GitHub. Having the rug pulled from you.

Terraform? Remember that? VMWare? Redis? What happens when a company stops providing a good deal? With GitHub you have lock in to the way they do things. So many of you complained about CentOS and then go lock yourselves in to far worse when you have CentOS Stream which was mostly good enough.

You have a perfectly good option: GitLab. Yes, parts of it are closed source, but most of you will be perfectly fine with the open source stuff. You can move your repos over to a self hosted option for your independence with ease. Most of you do not care about that because you want to seem like you have a lot of activity on your GitHub.

I do not blame you. I literally had an employer reach out to interview me directly because of my GitHub activity. His job offer was absolutely terrible but it was nice for them to do that this time.

But most of you also want to entertain the idea of moving up in the world from a simple coder. A tech lead, a tech business owner, vc startup, run a nonprofit, etc. Then you care about the rug being pulled from you, either because it means less money for what you want to do or it is a massive hassle to move, and this is an excellent way to prevent that.

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

#69

Post by exe34 » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 4:47 PM UTC

crabbone wrote: post #59

exe34 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Maybe you missed the second half of my post. It's a free service. Feel free not to use it.

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

#70

Post by Nab443 » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 7:40 PM UTC

madeofpalk wrote: post #48

mrd3v0 wrote: post #43

Earlier 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…

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-so…

I don't think the issue is the "makes money", but the "need to make more money", which happen to increase over time. At some point, they start making money with your code, or your users..

Who knows what ideas are growing behind Microsoft walls to make more money of gihub users? See what happened with sourceforge as an example..