I mean since Microsoft bought Github. I moved all my code out of there (which is not a lot btw) /u/dessalines

    • dirtfindr
      5·
      5 years ago

      The yerbamate.dev repo is indeed freedom-respecting and is free of all the evil of Github, but there is no issue tracker. It’s backwards to have the issue tracker on Github, the walled-garden where access is difficult/blocked for some as well as out of reach to those with strong enough morals not to use Github.

      • nutomicA
        4·
        5 years ago

        True, but unfortunately most people have accounts on Github already, and dont want to sign up on another site just for one project. Hopefully this will get better when Gitea gets federation.

        Having two seperate issue trackers would be even worse imo.

        • dirtfindr
          3·
          5 years ago

          I wouldn’t propose two issue trackers. There should be one issue tracker, and it should be on a non-controversial platform that is open to all, not an exclusive walled-garden.

          I have a Github acct from the days prior to Microsoft ownership. Now that MS owns it, it’s more difficult to login. In fact, github logins are more difficult than yerbamate.dev registrations. I often discover bugs in software that is exclusively on Github, but I don’t report them b/c I can’t be bothered to login and support Microsoft’s assets.

            • DessalinesA
              5·
              5 years ago

              /u/dirtfindr Its seems strange that even things like gitea, which has its own issue tracking system and literally replaces github, still primarily uses github for issue tracking. I similarly don’t plan on moving because:

              1. Most of the development community is still on github. Its not good, but its where people are.
              2. I’m pushing to 3 different repository locations rn, and PRs are open on all of them. Github has received the most.
              3. There is currently no decentralized issue tracking system. And if there was, I’d probably still keep both while people are doing the transition.
              4. A lot of people have asked me to use their preferred systems/technologies, not really caring about the amount of work it would take to transfer everything.
                • DessalinesA
                  5·
                  5 years ago

                  if you use gitlab/github, you will loose contributions from the people not wanting to use gitlab/github.

                  github has received the most contributions because it is the primary work area, not because of your users like github most.

                  I had issues open on gitlab and yerbamate for months, and advertised all three. Very few issues opened. PRs are still open on all three, but the only PRs have been from me and nutomic. So unfortunately no one is using them, although they do exist. Most people are still using github.

                  You can issue PRs here if you don’t want to use github or gitlab: https://yerbamate.dev/dessalines/lemmy

                  As far as issue tracking, I don’t really want to migrate all the issues, until a federated issue tracking system gets mostly working.

                • dirtfindr
                  21·
                  5 years ago

                  Concur with u/fruechtchen.

                  Also lazy users are perhaps not the ones making significant contributions to the project anyway, because they’re lazy.

                  Consider as well that when Github/Gitlab.com force me through hoops as a Tor user, not only am I too lazy to solve CAPTCHAs and do Github email re-verifications but I also feel like those efforts feed unethical systems which is even more anti-motivational. I will not dance for them – and as a consequence I often do not report bugs that I discover if the project is on Github or Gitlab.com.

  • ajz
    61·
    3 years ago

    deleted by creator

    • wraptile
      17·
      5 years ago

      Oof the first one is such a trigger bait. I hate to see free software get invaded with this culture. The second one is rather irellevant too - who cares that your free code is hosted on google’s servers?

      • dirtfindr
        11·
        4 years ago

        “Free software” that forces execution of non-free software isn’t really free. (see paragraph “2” below)

        There is nothing particularly wrong with the gitlab software, but that software must be hosted and configured and there are copious ethical problems with the gitlab.com service that the OP suggested:

        • Sexist treatment toward saleswomen who are told to wear dresses, heels, etc.
        • Hosted by Google.
        • Proxied through privacy abuser CloudFlare.
        • tracking
        • Hostile treatment of Tor users trying to register.
        • Hostile treatment of new users who attempt to register with a @spamgourmet.com forwarding email address to track spam and to protect their more sensitive internal email address.
        • Hostile treatment of Tor users after they’ve established an account and have proven to be a non-spammer.

        Regarding the last bullet, I was simply trying to edit an existing message that I already posted and was forced to solve a CAPTCHA (attached). There are several problems with this:

        • CAPTCHAs break robots and robots are not necessarily malicious. E.g. I could have had a robot correcting a widespread misspelling error in all my posts.
        • CAPTCHAs put humans to work for machines when it is machines that should work for humans.
        • CAPTCHAs are defeated. Spammers find it economical to use third-world sweat shop labor for CAPTCHAs while legitimate users have this burden of broken CAPTCHAs.
        • The reCAPTCHA puzzle requires a connection to Google
          1. Google’s reCAPTCHAs compromise security as a consequence of surveillance capitalism that entails collection of IP address, browser print.
            • anonymity is compromised.
            • (speculative) could Google push malicious j/s that intercepts user registration information?
          2. Users are forced to execute non-free javascript (recaptcha/api.js).
          3. The reCAPTCHA requires a GUI, thus denying service to users of text-based clients.
          4. CAPTCHAs put humans to work for machines when it is machines who should be working for humans. PRISM corp Google Inc. benefits financially from the puzzle solving work, giving Google an opportunity to collect data, abuse it, and profit from it. E.g. Google can track which of their logged-in users are visiting the page presenting the CAPTCHA.
          5. The reCAPTCHAs are often broken. This amounts to a denial of service. gitlab_google_recaptcha
            • E.g.1: the CAPTCHA server itself refuses to give the puzzle saying there is too much activity.
            • E.g.2: ccha
          6. The CAPTCHAs are often unsolvable.
            • E.g.1: the CAPTCHA puzzle is broken by ambiguity (is one pixel in a grid cell of a pole holding a street sign considered a street sign?)
            • E.g.2: the puzzle is expressed in a language the viewer doesn’t understand.
          7. (note: for a brief moment gitlab.com switched to hCAPTCHA by Intuition Machines, Inc. but now they’re back to Google’s reCAPTCHA)
          8. Network neutrality abuse: there is an access inequality whereby users logged into Google accounts are given more favorable treatment the CAPTCHA (but then they take on more privacy abuse). Tor users are given extra harsh treatment.