# OPENGITHUB wanted !! (URGENT)



## Spartrekus (Jun 23, 2018)

Hello,

I would like to ease the migrating all projects from an Microsoft Github to an open Github, which is owned by BSD.

You don't want to let Microsoft own your projects, right?  Thank you for your support (of Open Source).

*The reason is that with "OPEN" it means that it is Anti Microsoft and Anti Google, close source.
The other thing it that GITHUB must live (without Microsoft = evil)
Urgent: because Github is the core of a developer. You need a (open) place to save projects.*

I hope that someone will help there.


----------



## shkhln (Jun 23, 2018)

Spartrekus said:


> https://opengithub.com



You know there is no web server at this address, do you?


----------



## Spartrekus (Jun 23, 2018)

shkhln said:


> You know there is no web server at this address, do you?


Sorry


----------



## tingo (Jun 23, 2018)

There is always GitLab (Wikipedia: GitLab). And you can self-host it if you don't trust anyone other than yourself.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_source_code_hosting_facilities


----------



## ShelLuser (Jun 23, 2018)

Quite frankly I don't understand all this negativity towards Microsoft all of a sudden. Especially because most of it is based on nothing more but prejudice.

I prefer to stick with the principle of 'using the best tool for the job'. And fact of the matter is that GitHub works quite nicely with Git, so I really don't see any need to switch. Also because so far I never had to accept any changed usage policies on GitHub so... nothing changed, only the owners.

Microsoft owning my code?  Dude... _everyone_ owns the code shared on Github. Because a fork is only but one mouse click away. Well, that or `git clone <repo>` I suppose.


----------



## ralphbsz (Jun 23, 2018)

Spartrekus said:


> You don't want to let Microsoft own your projects, right?  Thank you for your support (of Open Source).



Before the Microsoft acquisition: The source code on GitHub was open, meaning visible to anyone.  Including to Microsoft.  The ownership of the source was with whoever held the copyright.  If I posted something on GitHub with one of the standard FOSS licenses (say the BSD license), then anyone (including Microsoft) could use it, but they could not prevent others from using it, nor could they pretend that they owned the copyright.

After the MIcrosoft acquisition: The source code on GitHub is open, meaning visible to anyone.  Including to Microsoft.  The ownership of the source is with whoever holds the copyright.  If I post something on GitHub with one of the standard FOSS licenses (say the BSD license), then anyone (including Microsoft) can use it, but they can not prevent others from using it, nor can they pretend that they own the copyright.

Now explain to me why you want to remove your code from GitHub?  Because you don't want MicroSoft to show you ads when you look at your source code, and so on?  You prefer to see ads shown to you by other companies when you use a free service, which is paid for by showing you ads?

If you hate Microsoft so much, here is a proposal: Post your extremely valuable and useful source code somewhere, but give it a specially modified license, which allows anyone to look at it and use it, but not Microsoft.  Oh wait, you probably also hate other companies (Facebook? Oracle? Google? Amazon? your local phone company?), so your license will have a long list of excluded companies.  Oh wait, you don't even know which companies you hate; for example, in that list we forgot Uber, Tesla, and your local electrical company.  So write a license that requires anyone to first ask you for permission to look at or use your software, so you can decide in each case whether you hate the company or not.  Oh wait, people might ignore your license and look at the software even if you hate them and you read your source even when they are not supposed to.  Easy to fix: just don't post your software at all, and keep it secret, only visible to yourself.

if you believe in FOSS (remember, the first two letters stand for Free and Open), then that means free and open even to the people you don't like.


----------



## Spartrekus (Jun 30, 2018)

Hello,

I would like urgently a website OPENGITHUB !

The reason is that with "OPEN" it means that it is Anti Microsoft and Anti Google, close source.
The other thing it that GITHUB must live (without Microsoft = evil)

Microsoft is a good operating system of course. It is making business. it is locking users and spying on them full as possible.

I hope that someone will help there.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Jun 30, 2018)

Quite ironic: Et tu, Gentoo? Horrible gits meddle with Linux distro's GitHub code.


----------



## Spartrekus (Jun 30, 2018)

lebarondemerde said:


> Quite ironic: Et tu, Gentoo? Horrible gits meddle with Linux distro's GitHub code.



Microsoft ads or banners are automatically added to your C code


----------



## ronaldlees (Jun 30, 2018)

The open source community is sometimes a little naive when it comes to the exchange of goods and services for dollars and sense, pun intended.  Someone has to pay for the *huge* bandwidth charges.  Either you'll have a site inundated with ads, you'll have a site with proprietary paid plans subsidizing the free ones, or you'll have paid subscriptions.  Since everyone expects free for "free software" - the paid subscription route will be uphill difficult business proposition.  We've all been living for free at Grandma's house.


----------



## 1init (Jun 30, 2018)

Gitlab is hosted on azure? is that a concern also? 
i dont see the point of worrying although i heard github "gentoo" repo was hacked the other day... Strange non systemd repo got hacked...
but either way the code is opensource for every one to see... there is nothing stopping a microsoft employee.... google employee.. me or you going to the source code and grabbing bits they need for a project. Or downloading a entire project.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Jun 30, 2018)

GreenTerror said:


> Gitlab is hosted on azure?



IIRC I read they are moving to Google.


----------



## rainer_d (Jun 30, 2018)

The problem with github is really that it hosts soooo many projects.
That cannot be good. In the same way the world is surely a better place if we don't end up having everybody and his dog hosted on AWS.

At work we have an on-site gitlab. Enterprise version. While a lot we do could be hosted in private repositories, there are quite likely a number of customers who would still require us to host locally.


----------



## Beastie7 (Jun 30, 2018)

ronaldlees said:


> The open source community is sometimes a little naive when it comes to the exchange of goods and services for dollars and sense, pun intended.  Someone has to pay for the *huge* bandwidth charges.  Either you'll have a site inundated with ads, you'll have a site with proprietary paid plans subsidizing the free ones, or you'll have paid subscriptions.  Since everyone expects free for "free software" - the paid subscription route will be uphill difficult business proposition.  We've all been living for free at Grandma's house.



You can thank GNU socialism indoctrination for that.


----------



## kpedersen (Jun 30, 2018)

I am very much for leaving Microsoft's GitHub mostly as a demonstration that we as the technical community do not respect their past choices (EEE, DRM, Locked down store, Crippled ARM/RT, SecureBoot, "Linux is cancer", Wintel partnership, killing of tools rather than releasing / selling, etc..) and they need to do a *lot* more to regain our trust and respect.

But it will be for nothing more than as demonstration rather than technical merit. I don't think the old GitHub, GitLab, Atlassian Bitbucket, Assembla, CodebaseHQ (my favorite) is any better from a privacy, freedom point of view.

And yes, unfortunately GNU Savannah or other "truly free" hosting can't handle the bandwidth.

Or can they? If you remove proprietary / nonfree stuff from GitHub and leave only GPL'ed / BSD / MIT licensed projects. How much data would that be? Perhaps also disallowing "personal projects" and only allowing ones with 5+ developers will cut out some of the excess.


----------



## SirDice (Jul 2, 2018)

Spartrekus said:


> I would like to ease the migrating all projects from an Microsoft Github to an open Github, which is owned by BSD.


Ok, who's going to pay for the massive infrastructure you need to keep that running? You?


----------



## sko (Jul 2, 2018)

SirDice said:


> Ok, who's going to pay for the massive infrastructure you need to keep that running? You?



Maybe this idea back from 2015 will finally get some traction?
https://blog.printf.net/articles/2015/05/29/announcing-gittorrent-a-decentralized-github/

It also re-surfaced on hackernews a few days ago.
Although the author uses GitHub as an example, the basic Idea of decentralizing git via torrent sounds really interesting, regardless of the Frontend (if any) one might use. Extending this idea and using some mechanism to make those "torrentized repositories" globally/publicly available and searchable, local installations of Frontends like GitLab could be used to access the Network and collaborate just like with centralized services like gihub or gitlab (the hosted service).


----------



## SirDice (Jul 2, 2018)

sko said:


> Although the author uses GitHub as an example, the basic Idea of decentralizing git via torrent sounds really interesting, regardless of the Frontend (if any) one might use.


I don't like the idea of doing a `git clone ...` and have it get stuck on 99% for 3 weeks.


----------



## vermaden (Jul 2, 2018)

Check this:

https://asymptote.club/
https://lobste.rs/s/nuavkg/asymptote_club


----------



## Cthulhux (Jul 2, 2018)

lebarondemerde said:


> IIRC I read they are moving to Google.



Yup, much better.


----------

