72
nobody 2y ago

Git is by its very nature decentralized. Everyone with a clone of a repo has the entire history of a project. It is trivial to move a repo from one place to another. Even actions are somewhat portable. Gitea is even implementing them.

Using the Wiki and Bug tracking features are the only not-easily-portable features of using GitHub. We have excellent FOSS software to do this part.

I don't see how *anyone* is dependent on GitHub. Which is why despite all the handwringing I see some FOSS purists doing, Microsoft has to this day, not f'ed around with GitHub. Even the co-pilot situation got huge pushback. M$ has surely realized by now that at any point, everyone can just *leave*.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
The Fishcake (nostr.build) 2y ago

There are alternatives:

- GitLab FOSS

- Gitea

- etc.

🐶🐾🫡

72
nobody 2y ago

Yep. Gitea is even super easy to self host. GitLab setup is a bit more involved/limited by a lack of ARM support.

I literally ran a Gitea on a Raspberry Pi. It was slick AF.

And all my code was on my machine. Several machines.

Avatar
The Fishcake (nostr.build) 2y ago

I used to like GitLab a lot, even contributed to their code base. As of recent, I would only use their FOSS if needed.

Gitea gone a long way but still lacks in CI/CD IMHO! 🐶🐾🫡

72
nobody 2y ago

It's coming. It's in Alpha testing right now, including the ability to use distributed runners! ♥️

Avatar
The Fishcake (nostr.build) 2y ago

That would be a good turning point. Then it will need distributed installation support. High availability, etc. 🐶🐾🫡

Avatar
Pablo Xannybar 2y ago

I think becoming complacent and just trusting a company to be nice is a little naive especially given Microsoft's history.

Embrace, extend, extinguish...

72
nobody 2y ago

I'm not trusting them. I'm not dependent on them. I can move at any time I want, because I don't use any features that require lock-in. That's my point.

There's a difference between using something and being dependent on it.

Avatar
Pablo Xannybar 2y ago

That's good. You're being smart.

Assuming you're referring to Jack's note, I think that's exactly how he wants people to think.

It's not about abandoning GitHub en masse. Just being aware of the situation and that git is bigger than GitHub, as you already are.

72
nobody 2y ago

It was in my mind. Won't pretend it wasn't.

I'm not criticizing his point directly either, more refining it. I'm all for benefitting for something that's given free, but as is so often the case, free comes with strings. It's good to be leery of lock-in.

I do see a lot of projects really integrated into github's ecosystem, and that's not good or even nessessary. We have BugZilla, Open project, et al.

Git also, as I pointed out, minimizes the possible damage. Part of what I love about git is keeping a local history. There are large projects out there that are backed up (in a manner of speaking) on tens of thousands of computers all over the world. That's pretty dang cool.

I expect Microsoft to do whatever is good for Microsoft. For now, that's also mostly good for developers, but I agree that it could change at the drop of a hat. At least with Git, we are better prepared than we have been in the past.

Avatar
Pablo Xannybar 2y ago

I'm pretty much completely with you.

And as you've pointed out, git is inherently decentralised, so you just need to be aware of which features are added by MS to create lock-in and which are native to git.

Avoid the former and you can easily push your local repos elsewhere at will without disruption.

72
nobody 2y ago

I really enjoyed this conversation. Thank you for helping me refine my thoughts, and for the insights.

Avatar
Pablo Xannybar 2y ago

Likewise! And you're welcome. It's a rare and wonderful thing to have a respectful discussion online.