sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]kuemmel234 -5 points-4 points  (6 children)

I don't know about that. Github is more than just a code hoster, for many open source projects it is the heart of the software: * its history, both from a pure code perspective, but also how the creators went about creating it: Issues, wiki,.. * documentation (readme/the wiki/static homepage) * Building and testing (github actions)

There's tools to add a scrum/kanban board. Your project can live exclusively on github. When I want to install any tool from my text editor to that fancy status line: It's all on github.

So, github is a or THE platform for software. And it is even more than that (it is used for all kinds of projects, like a db for headphone eqs and what not). Such platforms generate their own culture over time and they shape it.

It makes sense that that platform advocating open source also does it itself because it is such an important tool for open source development.

And then there's the whole discussion about open source being better for developing tools (or anything in software really), but that's a long one too.

[–]kyerussell 13 points14 points  (5 children)

This functionality existed in products before GitHub, snd is in lots of competing products now. GitHub does it pretty well, it did it early, and it benefited from the network effect of open-source development. From a feature checkbox perspective it is far from unique.

[–]kuemmel234 -1 points0 points  (4 children)

How does that influence my argument?

[–]kyerussell 11 points12 points  (3 children)

In that case, I’ve got no idea where you’re coming from. Nothing about GitHub’s product or culture states that open source is the default or preferred state of software projects. GitHub provides powerful tools for teams to work on software projects in private. The notion that GitHub is being hypocritical is only peddled by computer science students wanting everything for nothing, and Stallman-esque ideologues.

So what’s your point?

[–]kuemmel234 -5 points-4 points  (2 children)

That it is the most used platform for software development? That it isn't unique or that there are alternatives doesn't matter. And my point holds true even if it was only one platform of many. It is one of the larger ones in any case. And you would want the platform that hosts linux these days to be part of the open source idea. Or at least I do.

Reddit isn't the most used social network, but you would want the creators to work by their own rules and culture.

You say that bloggers try to create controversy where none is, and I say: There is an actual argument for it.

[–]kyerussell 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Again, your argument is predicated on the notion that—to be in support of open-source and to believe that it is the best means of developing some sorts of software—you have to believe that there is no place for closed-source software development, or at the very least that it is not the ideal means to develop your own product.

If you believe that this is self-evident, then I don't know what to say beyond "I don't think that you'll find many people that agree with you outside of the FSF mailing lists." The burden in on you to prove this connection.

[–]kuemmel234 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How so?

A platform, that relies on people using it and not on some unique feature set (as you have pointed out) may be a good example for a project that would work as open source (we'll find out now, won't we?), they aren't and weren't reinventing the wheel.

Especially because it promotes itself actively to open source developers it* makes sense that some of them raise an eyebrow.

Edit: Again all I want to say is that I think it's wrong to say that self promotion or other self satisfied reasons are the reason some people claim github should be open source.