Then gets defensive when they say yes.
You must log in or register to comment.
I use and recommend OSMAnd, but if you absolutely need an app that does less, CoMaps is a better choice
I switched from OrganicMaps to CoApps recently. CoMaps is a fork or OrganicMaps. One of the things they fix is that they moved the source from Github to Codeberg.
That’s a dead project, killed by CoMaps and just bleeding slowly from the wound. I don’t care about where they’re hosted, but I do about fucking Kayak ads, that’s a deal breaker.
Github gets an F rating as an ethical repository per gnu.org.
https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html
Criteria for above: https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.html
See also: https://sanctum.geek.nz/why-not-github.html
All of the above are pretty old and things have surely changed since then, but probably for the worse.
I will never understand the Fee software developers that go to bat for GitHub.
Microsoft hates you and everything you spend countless hours building for free. They steal your work and sell shittier versions of it for exorbitant profit that they do not share with the community. They contract with ICE. They sell AI tools to Israel to help them commit genocide, and their CI offering is a total fucking mess.
Isn’t all of their concern kind of demonstrated to be unfounded? CoMaps forked the exact codebase being discussed and moved to Codeberg already, and they’re doing great now. Whatever it is that the Organic Maps team thinks is indispensable on GitHub is clearly not actually an insurmountable challenge to ditch.
I use and donate[d] to OrganicMaps. I think they’re great, but I paused donations around the CoMaps split and have been waiting for the dust to settle. Their responses in the fosstodon thread seem so tone def: They’re asking about github on a mastodon instance and responding that it’ll be a worse product if they move. Thinking it’s time I give CoMaps a shot. [edit: add 2nd link for context]
Oooh, didn’t realize CoMaps was on Codeberg. https://codeberg.org/comaps/comaps
I use CoMaps as my main maps app and it works great
How is it a worse product if they move?
They seem to think github’s PR, CI, etc features are head-and-shoulders above the rest, and are hand-waving concerns around vender lock-in. They’re also saying it would be painful to move because of the aforementioned vendor features that have them locked in. Really seems to miss why many go FOSS in the first place.
I don’t like GitHub either but the large userbase ensures increased attention, which means more adoption, which means more contributors.
Maybe, but if so, I bet it’s negligible. When it comes to discovery, there’s so many places I’d look for FOSS projects before going GH. Except maybe to check awesome-lists, but you don’t have to be on GH to be linked on one (and I’ve seen them popping up on Codeberg). GH’s design in general doesn’t seem to promote stumbling across new projects. Even if I’m wrong, one could always mirror on GH.
As for contributing, if someone is willing to go though the trouble to contribute, I’d hope they’d go through the trouble of signing up on a new platform. Maybe there’s a non-zero number of contributors who would not, and that’s an unacceptable for some projects. There’s also potential for more contributors if they trust a project is living FOSS principles and less at-risk of vender lock-in. The fosstodon thread shows people care about where a project lives. The arguments in favor of staying on GH seemed mostly inertia-based.
I’m a software developer with over 40 years experience. Much of it with FOSS.
Your argument in relation to GitHub does not take in the reality of the effort involved with migrating to a different platform, effort that is likely unpaid, has no logistical upside and stalls the development efforts of a project, not to mention breaking every single source code repository link across the wider internet, links that represent publicity and community engagement.
It’s one thing migrating after a service vanishes, it’s an entirely different thing to migrate due to the philosophical differences perceived by the ownership change to Microsoft. In my opinion, chanting FOSS is insufficient as an argument.
I have several projects and clients that use GitHub and while I detest copilot and the enshitification that the new ownership represents, I’m also aware that it’s likely that the sale provides financial security to the continued existence of GitHub.
I think it’s admirable that a project is asking its community if it should stay or move and I wish the developer(s) wrestling with this all the strength and patience in the world to work through it.
I know I’ve struggled with the same considerations and I’m still using GitHub … for now.
Certainly it was a mistake to use Github in the first place.
Your argument in relation to GitHub does not take in the reality of the effort involved with migrating to a different platform, effort that is likely unpaid, has no logistical upside and stalls the development efforts of a project,
forgejo can automatically import issues, PRs, Wiki articles, and automatic pull/push mirrors can be set up to keep the repo up to date at other places.
the CI/CD system is almost the same.
all the usual features are the same or very similar, including the whole user interface.
not to mention breaking every single source code repository link across the wider internet, links that represent publicity and community engagement.
who said they need to delete the repo from github?
I think it’s admirable that a project is asking its community if it should stay or move
it indeed would be admirable if the communication did not contain offensive tones at multiple places.
and also don’t forget that they already migrated once. but in the meantime it seems they have gone back to github for reasons unknown to me.
You’re right. I don’t mean to minimize the effort required. The effort required is a big part of the argument in favor of moving, or at least aspiring to move to a platform with more open and interoperable values. I can’t imagine MS will make that transition any easier as time goes on despite forgejo and others best efforts. I’ve no problem with an OSS projects using GH but I’d hope they’d take the risk more seriously in a discussion about it.
Edit: I also don’t think the effort is wasted or insurmountable. Regarding broken links, I’ve stumbled across many projects that have changed their GH repo to a mirror and link to their new platform. And RE logistical v philosophical reasons, I consider avoiding vender lock-in to be risk management and part of a project’s long-term logistics.
If something works, don’t change it. And GitHub, not being ideal, works pretty well.
I agree, and I can forgive OSS projects still using it, but if they’re inviting a discussion about it I’d hope they’d be more sensitive that:
- github is not static
- being on a Microsoft platform carries a significant risk (embrace, extend, extinguish).
- There are plenty of successful OSS hosted elsewhere and each one helps the whole system grow.
windows 10 works pretty well too. all things amazon work pretty well too. google’s services very rarely have bugs, even less security breaches. they are all so convenient! why are people switching to alternatives, that are sometimes worse, sometimes better?
Win 10 might work pretty well. But win 11 fucking sucks.
