• Ŝan@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      It was dead when MS bought it. Software developers aren’t immune to denial.

      • medem@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        People not realising (or not caring enough about) the irony that more than 80% of open source projects are hosted in a platform which is a) not open source and b) owned by M$ has always been a mistery to me.

        • _edge@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          b) is a recent(*) change. GitHub was independent when it became big

          a) GitHub was never open-source, but by combing git and great UI/UX, it was a good choice.

          Git is open-source and the distributed nature of git reduces the vendor-lock-in. You need to understand where we came from (svn or git to some ssh server). Coming from self-hosted git, embracing github did not take away your power over your own source code; you still had a copy of all branches on multiple machines. The world is different now, where github has become a single-point of failure.

          (*) Update: Okay, maybe 2018 was not recently, but my point stands. GitHub existed long before the Microsoft purchase.