It happened


User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.9) Gecko/20100101 Goanna/3.4 Firefox/52.9 palemoon/27.9.2

but going back a minute ago on github again with Palemoon no more banner!!
but what was it then? a technical tests?
if I no had done the grab you might object me to having dreamed of it!
maybe I was too hasty in posting the thing but… as already widely expressed here, we’ll see


I didn’t have problems yet, so far so good. But, even if I think it’s bad, it’s too early to judge this acquisition.

(Steve) #44

I don’t think it’s MS “bashing” to point out the history of the company on which Void, and a significant portion of OSS, will depend.

MS has a history of strong-arm tactics and it was just released that Void is sticking with Github. Shouldn’t that raise any concerns, or, should we blithely accept it, shrug our shoulders and move on?


quick questions:
Is it to mutch work to have a backup plan on gitlab or something?
could we script something to make a doublebackup like that easier?

(oliver) #46

I don’t remember if it was mentioned here or another thread but Void uses Travis extensively and there was no viable alternative even if the team wanted to move.


yes I remeber this too, but that doesn’t hinder us from makeing a backup on some other platform. hens let travis aprove, then send same stuff to, for example, gitlab :slight_smile:
(therefor I ask about scripting this thing too, since it would othervise mean a lot of extrawork)

edit: as a example script procedure: lets call the script panzermonkey
(a referens to my old math teacher who calld procedures that always work, for pazartank solutions, and that you could probably train a monky to execute them)

alias git=panzermonky
in panzer monkey:
do normal git uplaod, then sleep5 min, then wget upload adress and sed line where travis has set the check, then do upload to gitlab

(Max) #48

I think it is mostly a cost thing. :frowning:
Hosting all this can be quite expensive. Also managing two services like this might be simply too much work and confusing. :confused:

(Jacob Moen) #49

Microsoft can’t perform any strong arm tactics with Github.
Git is decentralized …

And I don’t see any reason why they should screw it up.

And, if they do manage to make Github a terrible place, then no big deal: something new and better will arise. :wink:

Now, if Oracle acquired Github … ! That would truly be terrible.
So, this is mostly a good thing.


I know one thing for sure. SourceForge is using it to their advantage. They have a banner with info on how to import from github and also what improvements they made since 2016.

(Jacob Moen) #51

Sourceforge can dream - IMO they blew it a long time ago with ads and malware.

IMO, that Microsoft is openly pulling the strings with Github is better than IBM and others secretly pulling the strings with Gitlab.

I understand the resentment towards Microsoft that is prominent in certain parts of the open source community - that will probably never change …


I was in no way saying anybody should move to SourceForge. My point was that github was/is THE PLATFORM, and now with a lot of people switching away, the alternatives are trying to get their oar in the door, so to speak.

(Steve) #53

Github is not decentralized, the data is stored on their servers. People can mirror that, but in the end, it is a central repository for OSS.

When was the last time you read their Terms of Service or Privacy Policy? Can Microsoft make changes to those that change the nature of what may or may not be stored there at any time?

And, the big one as Void is emerging from it’s own problems: How can, and will, such changes effect void?

(Jacob Moen) #54

I said that git is decentralized.
(Every time someone clones a repository, they get everything)
Github is just a service, run by a company.
Previously a smaller company, now a bigger company.

(Erin) #55