4
What's Wrong with GitHub (www.gnu.org)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/librebyte@lemmy.ml
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 4 points 1 month ago (6 children)

That already puts you in the mood to treat everything that follows as the amusing bullshit it is.

Tech argument is needed not your personal preference.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Are you seriously asking me for a technical argument against a rambling screed by GNU cultists? There’s no technical argument in it, just GNU circle-jerking about an invented problem. If there’s a specific claim, quote it; otherwise, “tech argument is needed” is just your personal preference.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Did you even read it? Like always, I am grateful that Richard's still contributing towards software-freedom. He's a giant and a legend.

    Git was designed to support the Internet-spanning development project that maintains the kernel Linux. Therefore, Git needs a concept of user identity that also spans the Internet, and the Git developers found a simple solution: email addresses, including an optional name.

    This was an obvious choice for another reason: development of the kernel Linux is primarily coordinated using mailing lists. That project has its own mailing list infrastructure, and Git was also originally designed to facilitate processing patches exchanged by email.

    GitHub evidently disagrees with these design decisions, because it not only fails to provide mailing lists, but also absolutely refuses to display email addresses in its main web UI. If a commit has an email address associated with a GitHub account, a link to that account is shown, otherwise only a name is shown with no link at all.

    One of the moral principles of the free software movement is that the barriers to users becoming developers themselves should be minimal and only technical (and those are acceptable only because barriers such as requiring knowledge of programming fundamentally cannot be eliminated). Obscuring email addresses as GitHub does has the effect of isolating users from existing developers. The requirement to create an account at GitHub to participate in discussions is also a subtle social barrier to users who do not yet think of themselves as developers.

    I've been unable to contact the developers of a project before as their only communication channel is Github. This is a technical decision by Microsoft to create a monopoly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    Yes, I read it. It’s bullshit from start to finish: the “problems” are made up. GitHub is not a monopoly, and nobody forces you to use it. If you don’t like it, self-host or use another forge. Everyone is free to choose what’s convenient and best for their own projects. Prescribing what others should do is the height of idiocy.

    If you’re one of those ancient people who, for whatever reason, still want to deal with email and mailing lists, you can still do it. Git lets you produce patches and send them by email. But expecting everyone else to cater to that preference is absurd.

    The real question isn’t "What’s wrong with GitHub?" It’s "What’s wrong with Stallman?"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Email is a democratized decentralized highly resilient communication platform.

    GitHub requires a central identity service, now controlled by a monopolistic mega corporation.

    This is everyone's problem. Some people just don't understand why that's a problem, yet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    if you don't identify with free software culture is your personal preference, all issue described are real.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Whoa, don’t conflate the two. The Stallman cult is just one radical faction within FOSS culture. The issues described are subjective, real only to him and his followers. The problem is that Stallman tries to present them as everyone’s problems. But even his unhinged followers can keep avoiding the “issues” simply by using git and gh instead of the GitHub web UI. The whole thing is as absurd as a vegetarian ranting in a restaurant that has an entire section of salads on the menu.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent