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

Change GitBucket user interface to make difference with GitHub

gitbucket.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–88 of 88 posts

Re: Change GitBucket user interface to make difference with GitHub

#81

Post by justinsb »

mikestew wrote: post #80
justinsb wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which would likely be a violation of anti-trust law, as we learned in the 90s. I hope GitBucket posts the email from Github.

I mean this in the kindest tone I can muster in a text medium: go read a Wikipedia page on antitrust, or specifically read the details of the 90s MSFT case (which I assume you are referring to) before using the phrase "anti-trust law" in a sentence again. You'll realize why others view your comment as bordering on non-sequitor.

I would welcome a counterpoint in fact (vs personal statements). To me, the argument would be that Github has a dominant market position in public source code hosting, and using their ToS in this way would limit competition by hindering their distribution, and that this is contrary to the public interest (see "Dear Github" etc). I am by no means a lawyer, and would welcome correction and clarification.

Re: Change GitBucket user interface to make difference with GitHub

#82

Post by mikestew »

justinsb wrote: post #81
mikestew wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean this in the kindest tone I can muster in a text medium: go read a Wikipedia page on antitrust, or specifically read the details of the 90s MSFT case (which I assume you are referring to) before using the phrase "anti-trust law" in a sentence again. You'll realize why others view your comment as bordering on non-sequitor.

I would welcome a counterpoint in fact (vs personal statements). To me, the argument would be that Github has a dominant market position in public source code hosting, and using their ToS in this way would limit competition by hindering their distribution, and that this is contrary to the public interest (see "Dear Github" etc). I am by no means a lawyer, and would welcome correction and clarification.

Not a lot of time at the moment, but I'll start with the fact that there's BitBucket, Unfuddle, and others I've forgotten (hell, SourceForge is still around) that may allow a dominant position in that space, but GitHub is a long way from being a trust or monopoly. Additionally, the barrier to switching to competitor is low. GitHub has arguably little control or influence over the hosted source control market. Unlike Microsoft in the 90s, there is little but goodwill and reputation to keep us all from switching to BitBucket tomorrow.

Theres a lot of subtlety I'm missing, but that's the best this non-lawyer can do for the time being.

Re: Change GitBucket user interface to make difference with GitHub

#83

Post by 2pointsomone »

philipodonnell wrote: post #59
2pointsomone wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, this reminds of the Microsoft Office UI (I think its called Ribbon?). I think the rule around that is that people can make apps that mimic that UI EXCEPT in the case where the apps are direct competitors. Seems to be the case here too.

Fabric is the one I think : https://github.com/OfficeDev/Office-UI-Fabric

Na actually I am referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbon_(computing)

Re: Change GitBucket user interface to make difference with GitHub

#84

Post by selamtux »

I don't understant why people think gitbucket should look different then github.

Ofcourse logo, icons, css, js files must be rewrited by project contributors but looks can be same as github.

We love github, we use github, we promote github to companies, friends and community, we help them grow and being great with open letters, whishes, advises, even we publish our codes under gpl or other free/open source projects on github

They change and show how we can interact with other developers.

Github have a great experiences with coding community, resources to explore more ways to do things with rigth way with our help.

Github must be proud them self and its good.

But as a community driven projects doesnt have this experiences and/or knowlage. Copying ui and ux it's not be issue for those projects if they dont go to commertial way.

Its shows what github doing rigth. In this community we have great hackers, they can offer help to gitbucket, but we don't have great ux hackers as code hackers. Until we have ux developers (in general speaking) copying experiences from somewhere and given them to people sould not be issue.

Re: Change GitBucket user interface to make difference with GitHub

#85

Post by msbarnett »

justinsb wrote: post #81
mikestew wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean this in the kindest tone I can muster in a text medium: go read a Wikipedia page on antitrust, or specifically read the details of the 90s MSFT case (which I assume you are referring to) before using the phrase "anti-trust law" in a sentence again. You'll realize why others view your comment as bordering on non-sequitor.

I would welcome a counterpoint in fact (vs personal statements). To me, the argument would be that Github has a dominant market position in public source code hosting, and using their ToS in this way would limit competition by hindering their distribution, and that this is contrary to the public interest (see "Dear Github" etc). I am by no means a lawyer, and would welcome correction and clarification.

> I would welcome a counterpoint in fact (vs personal statements)

It would help, to make a counterpoint, if you spelled out exactly what in the 90s this reminds you of.

My wild guess is that this reminds you of the legal agreements Microsoft got in trouble for having computermakers sign that kept BeOS off their computers.

But that's wildly inapplicable here. Nevermind the important fact that a TOS for Github's own service forbidding using it to create a competing service is materially different from signing an agreement with a 3rd part to not do business with a competitor, the simple fact is Anti-Trust laws only apply to Trusts.

At the time Microsoft got in trouble, they had previously signed a legal agreement acknowledging they were a trust, in 1994. Github hasn't done that. Microsoft signed a legally binding document that said "We acknowledge we are a Trust, and we agree to play by the rules governing Trusts" and then broke those rules. That's what they got in trouble for. None of that applies here, however much you "think Github has a dominant position". That's not enough to get you slapped with antitrust violations.

If Github were a monopoly in it's market (which it isn't, but let's pretend), that's not illegal! They would first have to be shown to be leveraging that position to enter into other markets, or to in some other way be illegally using that position to prevent 3rd parties from doing business with competitors, which is a violation of the Sherman Act. Simply saying that competitors can't use their free service is not a violation of the Sherman Act.

Re: Change GitBucket user interface to make difference with GitHub

#88

Post by justinsb »

msbarnett wrote: post #85
justinsb wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would welcome a counterpoint in fact (vs personal statements). To me, the argument would be that Github has a dominant market position in public source code hosting, and using their ToS in this way would limit competition by hindering their distribution, and that this is contrary to the public interest (see "Dear Github" etc). I am by no means a lawyer, and would welcome correction and clarification.

> I would welcome a counterpoint in fact (vs personal statements) It would help, to make a counterpoint, if you spelled out exactly what in the 90s this reminds you of. My wild guess is that this reminds you of the legal agreements Microsoft got in trouble for having computermakers sign that kept BeOS off their computers. But that's wildly inapplicable here. Nevermind the important fact that a TOS for Github's own se…

Thank you for the explanation. Can you provide a citation that antitrust law applies only to Trusts?

To answer your question though, I was thinking of the accusation that Microsoft leveraged the Windows market position to promote Internet Explorer.

It still seems that (if a monopoly) Github's behavior could be covered by the "essential facilities" section. However both whether Github is a monopoly and whether their behaviour would be covered seem very fuzzy, and I suggest we leave that discussion to the lawyers!

Post reply on HN