Isn't the whole point of git that the repo is cloned in a million places. You can switch the remote repo really easily?
Maybe i'm wrong; I stopped using github years ago. And I don't do a lot of collaborative stuff, so I'm happy with just local git + rsync, local backups for most things. Maybe it has loads of unique features I've never noticed.
I'm not saying the alternatives are necessarily better for every project. Maybe github really is best for some - but it is a choice of the project to use github. They can move if they prefer the set of features of another repository.
I'm not convinced by anyone using "critical mass" justification for choosing github, that sounds like stockholm syndrome even though you have a key to the door.
"Too lazy to switch" that's legitimate; if a wee bit dissapointing.
"Doesn't allow my special sauce proprietary licence" - well . . .
The problem from my pov is, who is getting what support for ms? I just don't see it.
I used to be okay at using their stuff, most of the people i've every worked with (in the public sector) did a less-than-average job of using the software.
They got by, now it's worse with office365 and sharrepoint and web-apps and shit like that everything has become extremely infuriating.
Whenever we have issues it seems that more money gets earmarked for more new microsoft products, the new shit will solve our problems.
Oh, except the budget for "developers" on that new thing is spent so we're perpetually "waiting until next development cycle".
The only things we have that are reliable are tools we build ourselves in python, SQL and so on - and we just have to support thm ourselves. We're not "developers" or anything mystical like that, but it's the only way to actually get stuff done that helps us work better.
Who is out there having a good experience with MS and where does all this support go? I'm genuinely curious.
Crazy.
It's not too much of a stretch to apply that to selling a CD; the vendor would have to prove that they didn't make a copy?
Guilty before proven innocent.
tl/dr, yes it can(i mean it does today). moreover OSHW seems like it might help limit some of the bad parts. but that may cause tension viz. some current powerful people.
I reckon the benefits of open source arise from contestability in the supply chain - basically market competition.
As a buyer I can more easily switch my purchases from one supplier to another (including in-house) and that competetive tension gives me a better deal.
That competition erodes market power - and it drives down 'super normal profits' (economic sense of the term) closer down to the normal level (long run cost of borrowing ).
Free capitalism is about driving up profits. Restricting competition helps that by acquiring and perserving market power . Sometimes the political/market power route is easier than innovating a new or better product or production process - i.e a genuine competetive edge).
Basically it might be cheaper to bribe one market regulator (gain market power), vs employ a team of r+d engineers (try to gain competetive edge).
Society benefits when businesses do the latter (more engineering and science, less lawyers and politicians), but the shareholders don't necessarily care which method gives them profits (let's not mention 'animal' spirits) - so capitalists do a mix of both. OSHW reduces options on the market power side. Executive board remuneration becomes an imortant incentive at this point.
Capialism ans oshw can work together if the forces of free markets effectively mitigate any excess power caused by concentrations of control over capital. banks have to want to lend to small less profitable businesses who cmply with compatible standards (oshw being basically a version of this).
But I think capitslism and free and competetive markets are not the same thing. Incumbent capitalists seem to like to (ab)use free market rhetoric to try to gain political power that they then use to preserve market power and work against competition.
And I don't think capitalism can be "torn down", because any moderate density of human activity will beget a temptation for someone to try to get some disporportionate share of some type of power; 'market' power or otherwise.
But excesses of market (and other types of ) power can be reduced or regulated - which usually seems like a good idea. Unfortunately that does bring the politicians and lawyers back into the frame.
frankly I'd probably use one of those easy options in a new install.
But i'm personally glad to have gone through the process manually at least a couple of times on a few different systems, just to learn about various bits and pieces that may or may not be needed in different circumstances.
So yeah give that to students as a learning task - more useful than lots of the crap i was told to read.
I'd be surprised if it was a pre-requisite to do other coursework though
Merry also means drunk - at least in common British English.
Therefore it is quite an easy state to attain either from the offy, or a few pubs tat are also open for a few hours in the afternoon.
I think the "researchers" may not actually have gathered any data on what actually happens in these types of scenarios. beyond people just keeping on with old os which a lot will unless MS intentionally sends out a brick-update.
lots of countires/municipalities have WEE programmes to try to prevent electronics from getting to landfil - especially until things like batteries and other toxic or dangerous chemicals can be removed.
Or the headline is pure clickbait garbage - it's bad enough that i'm not going to bother clicking and read any more filth.
it is what it is.Isn't the whole point of git that the repo is cloned in a million places. You can switch the remote repo really easily?
Maybe i'm wrong; I stopped using github years ago. And I don't do a lot of collaborative stuff, so I'm happy with just local git + rsync, local backups for most things. Maybe it has loads of unique features I've never noticed.
I'm sure there are ways to scrape other data off the platform too. For example:
https://docs.codeberg.org/advanced/migrating-repos/
I'm not saying the alternatives are necessarily better for every project. Maybe github really is best for some - but it is a choice of the project to use github. They can move if they prefer the set of features of another repository.
I'm not convinced by anyone using "critical mass" justification for choosing github, that sounds like stockholm syndrome even though you have a key to the door.
"Too lazy to switch" that's legitimate; if a wee bit dissapointing.
"Doesn't allow my special sauce proprietary licence" - well . . .