Follow

Step 1: create a diverse ecosystem of successful open-source software, dominating the software market and defeating Microsoft once and for all

Step 2: Put it all on one proprietary software forge

Step 3: Microsoft buys the basket we conveniently put all of our eggs into

Wait

@sir OK first of all I misread that as "defending Microsoft" and was like "Yup, EXACTLY" and then "Oh, wait."

But anyway. Yup, EXACTLY.

@sir I'll have you know that MicrosoftⓇ Loves™ LinuxⓇ and is doing everything they can to Support™ Free™ and Open™ software.

@sir @ashimokawa @codeberg and that's the problem of open source...the fragmentation. That makes it hard to be a valid competitor of proprietary standards.

(I know this is also a strength in many cases, but regarding competition, it is holding many projects back)

@codeberg @choboDOC @ashimokawa yet you and I both know that, fragmented or not, we aren't about to close up shop and send everyone to the other. There's value in competition even within open source IMO, and it doesn't threaten our ability to compete with proprietary software. It diversifies our risk, and unlike proprietary software we're willing to cooperate and interoperate.

@sir @choboDOC @ashimokawa this is true too ... And still we have to acknowledge the incredible power of network effects unleashed by previously centralized platforms like Sourceforge and Github. Understanding Free and Open Source and Content development as social network is a very powerful metaphor

@sir @choboDOC @ashimokawa it is not that Sourceforge and Github did everything wrong. No, they did not: they both built the infrastructure that enabled FOSS as we know it today. Each of them were leading technical development at their time.

It is that both SF and GH showed us the weak point of commercially driven organizations in FOSS networking: the non-negligible risk of corporate buyout.

@codeberg @choboDOC @ashimokawa honestly to me it's a lot more than this. The risk lies is having a profit motive in the first place. This is what drove design decisions like eschewing the patch-based workflow git was designed for (which is federated and decentralized) for the much weaker pull request model (which is much easier to centralize and make proprietary). This incentive model also explains things like telemetry and user tracking. This is why I expect all sourcehut users to pay for their account - because then I'm accountable to them, not to any investors, and I don't have to extract value from them via some side channel like their data just to keep the lights on.

@sir I wonder how large GitHub is and if someone's already archiving it

@sir Looks like archiveteam is at it. An estimation from 2015 puts it at 120TB. A slight bit more than I could archive myself

@minus Last time that something like that happened there were a few quite vocal users that were against archiving pretty much anything. See https://fedi.absturztau.be/notice/9rXS33aqhqrIJEaSwa or https://bune.city/2019/05/archive-team-and-the-fediverse/ for example.
@sir it's the future you all chose for not self-hosting your sources. No pity from me at all.
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!