Comments

  • edited July 2022

    Star & boost on mastodon:
    https://mastodon.technology/@conservancy/108566699794749564

    I've been wanting to bring this issue up but as a non coder didn't quite feel qualified. For me the important thing is that knowledge about projects, their communities and issues are owner by the project. I'd love to hear people's thought about all this and the ethical implications of 'turning over' our code to github.

  • The problem isn't 'turning over our code' (unless you are concerned about copilot, but then this could be fed from any public git repository, there is nowhere to hide), code in git is easy to move elsewhere, the problem is all the information in trackers etc.. that isn't portable to other services.

    The big-corporation nature of Github has advantages. If I was to trying to sell git to AEC professionals for hosting BIM data, I'm going to point them to Github every time.

  • edited July 2022

    Who has experience with Codeberg?
    @brunopostle yes, git means that the actual code itself can be pulled out. What do you mean by trackers?
    The thing that worries me is that whatever community you build around github stays with github. If you start using their issue tracker, their discussions & their wiki ... as far as I can see it's all © 2022 GitHub, Inc. And those are just the practical problems. The larger problem is that github itself is not opensource. Why do we talk about digital sovereignty and then put so much into github and support them in locking git into their proprietary. Would we endorse Revit if it worked natively with IFC?

    I think a lot of us are old enough to know the Microsoft method: embrance, extend, extinguish. First they embrance git as a technology, then they extend it with proprietary tools once people feel they are locked in, then they have the power and they just make their own closed proprietary system people can't avoid because they've invested so much into the MS solution ecosystem. Badly explained but the wikipedia article explains it better.
    But already now for example in the settings they have "Installed GitHub Apps: GitHub Apps augment and extend your workflows on GitHub with commercial, open source, and homegrown tools."
    Federated forges sounds like way out of part of the problem: https://forgefed.org/

    brunopostlebruno_perdigao
  • Related to this is the discussion that is happening at blender right now on what platform to switch to. They ended up going with the open source Gitea. I have never used it but I hope that blender using it results in it becoming more fully featured and accepted as an open source alternative to GitHub.
    https://devtalk.blender.org/t/developer-blender-org-choice-for-gitea-reasons-and-timeline/24896

  • Codeberg seems really nice, they use gitea too, and they have this cool cooperative model. We are mirroring FreeCAD stuff there already (on GitLab too), but I'm really liking it a lot so far

    bitacovirbaswein
  • @yorik said:
    Codeberg seems really nice, they use gitea too, and they have this cool cooperative model. We are mirroring FreeCAD stuff there already (on GitLab too), but I'm really liking it a lot so far

    Like Blender, FreeCAD is a referent. What ever FreeCAD does, many people will follow.

  • edited July 2022

    @duncan said:

    I think a lot of us are old enough to know the Microsoft method: embrance, extend, extinguish.

    That is like a borg's statement... jajaja

Sign In or Register to comment.