• 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.