Github is now a fully owned, proprietary tool of Microsoft.
It's time to decide.
Do we as a community allow our future to depend upon commercial interests of a company that to this day spreads FUD and minimizes our impact when it suits their plans?
Or do we step up, do what we do best and take our code to somewhere created by the us for us and the good of the community?
This isn't about hating Microsoft. It's about loving our own sovereignty and controlling our *own* future.
Please Boost.
@Blort But github was already a closed source product monetizing analytics and metadata to stay afloat, selling toolkits to recruiters.
If Microsoft does the exact same thing does that make it any different?
But if you do move, please consider Gitea over Gitlab, Gitlab is just another Github w/ a better whitelabel implementation.
@Elucidating It was a problem before Microsoft, and it's still a problem with Microsoft. Of course Microsoft has a longer history of exploiting the problems if proprietary code, but regardless, the point remains the same. If we believe in the freedom to own, share, learn from and modify our code for the benefit of all, then we should with our hosting tools, as with our other coffee and infrastructure.
@Blort As I have pointed out, I think that that right is actually very problematic and most developers of software do not want the responsibility it brings.
I think it's not a slam dunk to say that users should have unlimited rights because it strongly disenfranchises creators. It purports to make everyone a software creator, but actually discourages shared code due to writer liability.
@satanya Yes, it was. That was a problem. Now it's a problem being actively exploited by Microsoft for their own gain. Does that mean we shouldn't fix the original problem?
@satanya It's not "just" about data privacy. It's control over whether the features of the website work for what you believe in, or against it.
By using the site, you're making it harder for others who don't wish to. Right now it's hard to contribute to many FOSS projects if you don't wish to use GitHub. Why? Because so many others do. The network effect. I'm not saying to boycott GitHub projects, so much as to see this opportunity to deprecate it for something of our own design.
@satanya Also, "just choose what data to give them" is problematic as it becomes harder and harder to "choose" to not give data.
Take Facebook for example. Even if you choose to never post there, they have a profile created for you based on all the websites that you've visited that use their pixel/like button/comments widget. Having to run software to try and block all that, is yet another barrier to opting out, catching more people unaware. Why support that kind of thing?
I do agree that it's sad that people ignored this issue before the MS buyout, and that all businesses are under the same pressure to put profits before people.
The creation of the public benefit corporations in the US goes a small way to mitigating the problem by limiting liability when one puts public good before profit. Companies are run by people though, with different ideologies that get them doing more or less evil things, so I do think some companies are worse.
@Blort This is so true :/
@Blort I very well remember days back then when FLOSS hosting mostly happened on Sourceforge until at some point github appeared. Maybe it's the same here as it is about other network services indeed: We need new, cooperative, collaborative approaches not just to developing software but also about running and delivering software to users in a quality and reliability on par with Amazon AWS, Github, Twitter, ... .
@z428 Exactly. What we *don't* want is for everyone to just stay and roll with whatever Microsoft decides is best for themselves. Equally, we don't want is for everyone to just jump over to some other proprietary coded silo, as happened with the SourceForge to GitHub migration.
This time we need to control the platform, make it as forkable as git and as based around our own goals and itches as every other FOSS project.
@Blort True. We should keep people from simply moving to the next proprietary silo, but to do that, we need to find an approach that offers the ease-of-use, the straightforward accessibility and availability of #github and #gitlab and *still* is open and controllable. This is where I see not just development but hosting as extremely important.
@z428 Couldn't agree more. As in most other network services we need the combination of federation, open code, community governance and ease of use for the code that runs our hosting.
As per usual, the perfect option may not exist yet, but as soon as the FOSS community feels a strong need, we have the skills to make it happen. Let's take what we've learned from federated social networks, to the current open source code repository software, while encouraging diverse hosting solutions for it.
@Blort
We need to make fork of GitHub lol
@Christian We would if it was open source. There exactly lies the problem with replying on proprietary tools/coffee/companies, Microsoft, GitHub or otherwise.
@Blort
"Github is now a fully owned, proprietary tool of Microsoft.
It's time to decide."
It was a privately owned, proprietary tool before the acquisition. What's the big difference? Centralization is bad in any case.
@alexshendi I agree. It was a problem before, and I told people that. Now it's a more obvious problem, so hopefully people will listen more.
@Blort GitHub was always proprietary? And people moving to GitLab.com and BitBucket.org are similarly moving to centralized sites/platforms? GitLab.com is a proprietary version of GitLab even.
@Blort I just moved my most important repos to git.datenwolf.net β still incomplete, but the essentials are there.
@Blort In the long run I think it would be cool to have something like a federated Git repository frontend, so that you can submit "pull requests" in the Fediverse.
I'm an absolute nweb when it comes to Federation protocols. I can setup a Mastodon instance if I have to, but that's about it. But I wonder how hard it would be to come up with the protocol requirements and implement it on top of β say β Gitea (or Gogs) or GitLab.
@datenwolf Good question! It's high time we found out...
@Blort We really need to find a way to merge git with the likes of IPFS to ensure a truly distributed and censorship resistant git infrastructure.
> The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless βSun Tsu
@profoundlynerdy Absolutely. I've long argued that an easy system for redundancy is currently the Achilles heel of self hosting, and that IPFS or similar is key to finding the solution. This is definitely true for self hosting git repos also.
Before people jump in, posting about how the "new" *cough* Microsoft isn't that bad... firstly this isn't about Microsoft per se. It was a problem letting the infrastructure we depend on, be based on the business plans and proprietary tools of one company, long before Microsoft bought GitHub.
This is one area where we have more than enough skills and talent to do better. Options exist. GitLab, Gitea, GitLite, GOGS and more. Support them! Contribute! Help make them and the world, better.