this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
393 points (95.6% liked)

Programming

17484 readers
102 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Initially, LinkedIn was just another site where you could find jobs. It was simple to use, simple to connect with others; it even had some friendly groups with meaningful discussions.

And then it gained monopoly as the "sole" professional network where you could actually land a job. If you are not on LinkedIn now, you are quite invisible in the job market. Recruiters are concentrated there, even if they have to pay extremely high prices for premium accounts. The site is horrible now: a social network in disguise, toxic and boring influencers, and a lot of noise and bloated interface to explore.

When Google decided to close their code.google.com, GitHub filled a void. It was a simple site powered by git (not by svn or CVS), and most of the major open-source projects migrated there. The interface was simple, and everything was perfect. And then something changed.

GitHub UI started to bloat, all kinds of "features" nobody asked for were implemented, and then the site became a SaaS. Now Microsoft hosts the bulk of open-source projects the world has to offer. GitHub has become a monopoly. If you don't keep your code there, chances are people won't notice your side projects. This bothers me.

Rant over. I hate internet monopolies.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hypx@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We're going to need a replacement for github pretty soon.

[–] unicorn@mander.xyz 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There are many good replacements, you just need to stop using Github :)

Some examples: Forgejo/Gitea (self-host or hosted eg. codeberg.de), Gitlab (self-host or hosted), Sourcehut (self-host or hosted eg. sr.ht)

[–] svetlyak40wt@fosstodon.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@unicorn @Hypx self-hosted is ok only if you don't want any contributions.

Otherwise self-hosted solution becomes a yet another barrier for the person who wants to contribute.

[–] unicorn@mander.xyz 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is only true for the merge request workflow and not at all a problem for the patch workflow, which can work entirely via email (and is in my eyes simpler). Have a look at https://git-send-email.io/ if you want to learn about it. This is the true decentralized spirit of git. :)

[–] svetlyak40wt@fosstodon.org -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@unicorn

> Have a look at git-send-email.io if you want to learn about it.

But I don't. And that is exactly the barrier I'm talking about.

[–] unicorn@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

By this logic, you want a complete monopoly of a single platform? Because that's the only possible way to have "no barrier". Unless GitHub starts federating with some kind of standardized protocol. This is a huge technological and monetary barrier for GitHub, which is why it will never happen on its own, so if users are not willing to try platform-independent workflows then the problem is frankly not the competing platforms.

[–] Kissaki@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What makes you think we need a replacement soon?

[–] Hypx@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

@Kissaki @sizeoftheuniverse

GitHub is owned by Microsoft and it seems to be getting worse. It is also nearly a monopoly and that’s bad in general.