I wonder where people get the notion that FreeBSD uses Github
In my post
#26 - if you had read it - I say:
I thought FreeBSD's github was independent of "Microsoft's" GitHub.com?
So, after
The URL
https://github.com/freebsd indicates it's M$'s GitHub.com.
I was not sure anymore. "Maybe this was changed since my last info?" But it was just a simple misunderstandiung, that's already cleared.
I also thanked
cy@ for his explanation in post
#36 which cleared that.
After that some of you guys seem to start bashing "the unkown stupid." And maybe I'm mistaken, or oversensitive, but I cannot help the feeling that includes me.
So, let me clear up two additional things, before I leave:
I wonder where people get the notion that FreeBSD uses Github for its main repositories?
(most)...
People think that github is the only place where git trees live.
Yes. But that answers only half the question, and induces the next one:
Why do they think that?
Because everywhere and always it's only "github", "github this", "github that", and "github", only: "pull from github!", "I pulled from github" Even here.
You have to search for statements relativize source code sources, and git usage besides GitHub.
To know there is not only github.com where git trees can live you have to learn yourself; e.g. maybe read the developer's handbook, which I don't (yet), because I'm neither a developer, nor will become one in the near future, or you have to think of setting up your own version control system, which I did, deal with the idea to set up your own server with your repo to learn git is usable independently from GitHub.
But this is no proof to know then where FreeBSD's git repos lives (currently, and in the future.)
Again, thanks
cy@ for your clear words!
A lot of people have such an extreme hate for big tech (in particular for Microsoft and Google) that the mere mention of any word that starts with "git" makes them go into conspiracy theory mode.
Maybe so.
But maybe that's at least partially their own fault.
Anybody who was not completely asleep since the mid 1990s are aware of it, if not witnessed what "big tech", above all Microsoft, and Google (et al), all
actually did, and currently
do.
I know, at this point there is a need to name at least one or two examples to not be accused of being a conspiracy theory moron fishing in fog, but not only I want to keep this post as short as possible (and not want to start several side discussions on details on those) there is enough stuff - no "conspiracy BS", real stuff, with evidence, court judgments, and everything - to be found quickly you could write a (large) book of the topic "The Dirty Tricks Microsoft Pulled, and the laws they simply gave a fuck laughing at" alone (plus another, similar one for Google.)
One may also say:
Microsoft is the core and main reason for OpenSource as we have today.
And if you eventually understood how capitalistic economies of companies quoted on stock exchange work (and you better shall know with both Microsoft, and Google that is the case), so understood such a company is not paying even a single cent without seeing any return of investment for it. Bill Gates may do charity as a private person from his own personal assets, but for sure not the company.
And if you finally knew Microsoft paid 7.5
billion (10^9 - nine) for GitHub you don't need to be a paranoid conspiracy theory crackpot from outerspace to understand, that's not for "charity".
That's to get control over the vast majority of open source.
Some may remember: In the late 1990s, early 2000s Microsoft was attacking OpenSource, if not trying to destroy but at least stifle, and badmouth it, above all Linux. They were really afraid to lose serious amounts of customers if Linux actually became the success the Linux community stated their project with trombones in public.
Now they are completely relaxed. In contrary they cooperate. They learned: There is no danger. Linux is nothing a common computer user ever touches freely. Besides Linux is a playground for some few computer nerds it settles market niches Microsoft don't need to care about. Plus once in a while something useful drops out of there. So they not engage it anymore. They support it. Among other things with GitHub.
For the OpenSource (Linux) community it's perfect (bait was a conspiracy theory): A powerful, professional maintainded central hub where all open source projects may live. For free. By now. Some may remember open source community experienced such things like SourceForge. Finally they wanted to make profit from it, regardless what was promised. To accuse Microsoft similar motives must be a conspiracy theory, of course. I know you have to register to GitHub. And I also know most of those "free" services sooner or later also want your real, and validated e-mail address, your real name, and eventually your phone number. I don't want to explain that (length of post), but that's the end of free usage.
Until then, if anything useful to Microsoft appears on GitHub, they can pick it. I see no problem in that in general. Many open source developers work for exactly that: Hope to be found, and get real money for their work.
For Microsoft it's more comfortable to have it all centralized on their own machines instead to crawl the internet for it.
In my eyes that's one point why GPL is like it is: "If you want to make money with it, pay the developers." But I neither want to start any license debate, again. (Personally I'm with BSD, and MIT.)
But on the other hand they have the control over it. Conspiracy theory: Maybe one day they simply proclaim all the licenses the GitHub users put their software under were invalid, and only Microsoft's licenses are now valid - "didn't you read the last terms of usage change? But you singed it anyway." According to what we've seen in the last thirty years that was something not completely from outside this universe.
And I read several blog entries from GitHub dropouts, range from warning to open boycott. But of course I cannot really judge that. So this must be rated as conspiracy theory.
But what I'm convinced about nevertheless is if they can, and will block anything occurs on GitHub that may endanger their revenue.
Just as an thought experiment: Imagine on GitHub a complete turn key operating system is published for free usage: core features: runs on any typical end-users computer hardware, completely foolproof autodetecting, autoinstalling, and autoconfiguring all hardware, internet access, etc. comes up with a windowslike (or even better) desktop environment (a lot of noisy and colorful blinking fiddle-faddle crap), but above all: capable to install and run any Windows software as you were running Windows itself. Maybe some turnkey Linux distro with some sophisticated Wine implementation (It's not my point here to discuss if this can be really done, or how exactly.)
What do you think will happen?
Must be a conspiracy theorie based on irrational hate against those "evil big tech" to accuse Microsoft would close the according GitHub repository.
All I wanna say is, you may produce conspiracy theories about the details of what, when, why, and how,
but for sure not for not blindly trust GitHub totally, unconditionally in full, but being careful what you place there, have some independent, primary server (what we've learned FreeBSD has), and anyway always stay guard to preserve your independency.
If history told us one thing, it's always better to be precautious in the first place, than to whine afterwards about breach of trust, and look for justice with court trials, which you may win for sure but will have no use of it, because "evil big tech" still earns millions with it, and simply laughs at you, while you spend many ten thousands of dollars to finally get to your right, which after several years became worthless.
Peace out.
