Oh, that's what you meant. How do you contribute to a project on any git host if that git host won't let you? In what way is GitHub any different from that?
FaceDeer
joined 1 year ago
You're not "pretty fucked". Just use one of the many other git hosts out there. OP himself lists some of them in his rant.
Microsoft has developed many open-source projects. The view of Microsoft as some kind of anti-open-source crusader is 20 years out of date.
All of those issues would arise if you wanted to migrate an established project to Github as well.
This isn't even a problem with historical awareness, OP knows that Github isn't a monopoly. They listed off a bunch of alternatives in their rant. I'm really not sure what they were even complaining about.
Content warning: this is a rant from a teenager who has strong opinions.
Okay...
However, it holds a monopoly on software.
You don't know what a "monopoly" is.
they could just go “Boop! You’re gone!” and there’s nothing I could do about it other than move forges.
Yeah, nothing you could do about it, other than moving to one of the many other git hosts. Monopoly!
And then after listing off a whole bunch of alternative git hosts...
Centralization is not bad by itself but it’s bad when there’s no other option. There just needs to be ways to contribute to code without having to use Github.
You have plenty of ways to do that, and you know that because you just listed them. Github is not a monopoly.
Also, I don't see the concept of open source mentioned at any point in this rant.
It could become a bit more reasonable when you consider that most of that gear is probably reusable, so if she expects to do day trips to the beach frequently the $800 gets amortized.
In this case, though, I wouldn't assume any forward planning like that was factored in to this.
I could see it being useful for keeping the sun off, serving as a refuge from insects (depending on the local biome), perhaps serving as a changing room for privacy. But yeah, it should hardly be necessary. Just another frivolous expenditure, only do it if you can genuinely afford it.
A couple of weeks back there was an article making the rounds of the fediverse about how people with reasonably decent incomes were nevertheless living "paycheck to paycheck", and a number of examples were given in the article with their individual stories of woe about how they were baffled by how burdened with debt they were. Most of those stories, when you dug in with just a slightly critical eye instead of an automatic assumption of victimhood, revealed people making foolish choices to take on debt and support the maximally lavish lifestyle that they could manage.
The comment section was weird. It turned out that there were some people there who thought this was perfectly reasonable, giving examples of "necessary expenditures" from their own lives that were just as excessive when examined. If you think that building a deck or buying a new bed simply because it's "time for a new one" are necessary expenditures then it's kind of hard to be sympathetic when you complain about how you have no money for long-term savings.
Is there just some basic personality type that finds it hard to be responsible with money, or is this a failure of education somehow? I have ideas for how to help but help will be unwelcome by people who refuse to recognize that they have a problem.
Sounds like a purity spiral may be revving up.
Better than having people get convicted based on fake evidence, though.
There's quite a series of leaps of logic here.
Because Google (not Microsoft) released a project under the BSD license (an open source license) but "everyone on Lemmy" doesn't think it's open source, therefore a hosting site owned by Microsoft (not Google) is not "open source."
I'm not even sure what is meant by GitHub being "open source." It's a hosting provider, not an actual piece of software. The site itself doesn't have a source license. The individual repositories can have licenses, which can be whatever the user who created the repository sets it to be - including open source licenses. Do you mean GitHub Desktop? Microsoft released that under the MIT license. And you don't need GitHub Desktop to use GitHub anyway.