@lightweight Mentioning Microsoft there is such a clickbait and undeserved hate. The author is frustrated with the decline of his favored email-based workflow, which is understandable, but has nothing to do with corpo politics (for better or worse)

@vazub not hate, just disrespect. Do you think that disrespect is not warranted? I see you're no fan of Github...

@lightweight I am, indeed, no fan of either GitHub or Microsoft, but I do get a bit disappointed with articles like these, that are exploiting FUD arguments to promote their own agenda. We can analyze the article point by point, if you like, to see exactly what is wrong with it.

@vazub I must say, I'm intrigued to know what, exactly, you consider to be wrong about it. I think Drew is frustrated. I think a lot of us are. I think that frustration is warranted, and it's resulted in a lot of work by a lot of principled people to do things in a better way.

@lightweight Points debated:
1 - the title kind of implies that Microsoft was the schemer all along and did all the assumed damage. This is wrong - GitHub pioneered PR-based workflow workflow long before being acquired by MS

@lightweight Points debated:
2 - Claim that there was a git extension in a proprietary way to lock you in. This doesn't hold well either. The flow is just a flow, not inherently altering underlying Git itself as a product in any way. Don't like GitHub? It is just a convenience crutch, you are still free to use Git itself however you like. Fear of proprietary tools? There are FLOSS alternatives, for example Codeberg, Gitea etc.

@lightweight Points debated:
4 - Alleged "extinguish" card by MS and Sarah Novotny.
Emotional description aside, it is referenced in attached article that Sarah comes from Google where she championed open-source strategy for Cloud Platform. I would say that is a plus one karma point in a background check at least. MS waging war against open source - this is also wrong. It was FLOSS that waged war against the monopolistic sloth MS became, and it was FLOSS that won everywhere except desktop yet.

@lightweight Additionally, Sarah shared her thoughts in a reply to a question about Linus's concern for finding maintainers. While not the primary reason and not for Linux only, I support the notion that email-based flow is clunky, cumbersome and a thing of the past. In the end, GitHub became popular for a reason - it provided a modern tool that won over the devs. This is life, that is how evolution works, even if you don't like it.

@lightweight Moreover, EEE-strategy and "extinguishing" makes sense when we are talking about stifling competition in favour of your proprietary product. How does that work for MS so far? What proprietary product would win that doesn't have FLOSS alternative implementation? And why the duality of MS/GitHub vs sourcehut competition? It is like no one else exists in the market? Mentioned other Git hostings in other threads already.

@vazub I've agree with your first 3 points. Not agreeing with this assessment, though. Corporation co-option of F(L)OSS communities, particularly those who have developed a dependence on corporate resources, is a defeat for those communities, not a victory. F(L)OSS is better, yes, but the power is still wielded by the corporations rather than the more worthy communities because of people like Sarah who think that corporations can be 'fixed'. They can't be.

@vazub Where F(L)OSS has lost a lot, I think, is in the fact that Microsoft (and Github before it) have successfully driven a wedge between FL^OSS, to the point where OSS is no longer seen (as it was when I first became passionate about FOSS) as including Free/Libre Software. That, to me, is a tragedy, as is the movement towards "more permissive" licenses encouraged by proprietary interests and, sadly, taken up by the new gen of devs, which has undermined most of our past triumphs.

@lightweight Points debated:
3 - Microsoft joining Linux Foundation and buying GitHub as part of the scheme. Well, this is a typical business expansion, I give the author that. But how exactly it is part of the EEE scheme to kill email-based Git flow? By the way, Azure Repos was using Git and had PR-based workflow before MS got GitHub. So where is the connection here?

@lightweight Points debated:
5 - "Dismantling the distributed, open system that git was designed for".
How does using email flow == upholding distributed open system? Was git designed explicitly for using email for collaboration and not anything else? Sure, it was a dominant flow at that time, but saying Git was "designed for that", as a virtue - is plain bias, with no technical merit to it. As discussed in previous comment, a flow is just a flow, it doesn't change the underlying Git in any way.

@lightweight Points debated:
6 - Author representing sourcehut, a competitor using open distributed protocols and FLOSS software.
What about GitLab? Gitea, Codeberg? They can claim the same, yet they still use the modern workflow. Here is the elephant in the room - the article is purely a desperate move to promote sourcehut. This is fine, sure, but only as long as you don't use wrong arguments to support your claim, as the author did. Right now it doesn't feel solid and just plays the FUD card.

@vazub And I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that it's not part of a bigger scheme. I think the EEE invocation is relevant. Git is being twisted from its original purpose the same way email was (with the disastrous introduction of HTML email) - both by Microsoft.

@lightweight To invoke EEE as an argument, one must first prove that: a) an entity being questioned is actually the one to blame, b) any of the 3 steps were happening, c) the standard is forked or otherwise being suppressed to the detriment of community and competition, d) the entity gets competitive advantage as a result.
The author might have some valid points here and there, but overall each of those proofs on his end are very weak.

@vazub don't get me wrong - if you think an injustice has been done to someone you don't even like, and yet you're standing up for them anyway, I respect that. I just don't really see the injustice yet. :)

@lightweight The thing is, I am not actually standing up for “them“, I don‘t even care about them. My gripe is purely with the article‘s flawed reasoning, lack of factual support to claims and quite profound emotional manipulation - I just can‘t stomach those, no matter which side resorts to them :)

@lightweight
I could see a similar pattern in what Drew did compared to what Aral is doing these days. Not hating anyone here, just putting a little perspective into this debate.

Also kudos to you guys for keeping this argument at a very professional level, it is not something seen every day.

@vazub

@vazub Ok - I agree with most of your points. I agree that the main flaw in Drew's post is that he didn't explicitly acknowledge his vested interest (although his interest is in proper FOSS, even if he wrote it, which is quite mitigating from my perspective) & didn't draw attention to real issues like 'shifting locus of control' perpetrated by MS, buying a seat on the board of the LF & actively trying to create dependencies within FOSS communities on MSFT 'generosity'. Might not be strict EEE.

@vazub Thinking about it further, I think Drew's vested interest should be pretty obvious to most readers, so it probably doesn't really need to be stated explicitly. But yes, referring to what he's characterising as EEE is probably not appropriate. Even so, it's lashing out (with good reason) at disingenuous behaviour by MSFT.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon - NZOSS

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!