I favor a distributed model as much as possible, that means for now having personal/projects classic websites, mirrored for instance on ZeroNet&c and source code exchanged as much as possible only P2P. It's not comfortable now but that's the sole possible free evolution path we have and only investing in it now can ease situation tomorrow.
On git only: what is another remote? A GitHub concurrent company? A personal dyndns from a single developer with a fable ADSL?
On GitHub: many use it's proprietary characteristics like PR, wikies, pages etc. That's not "portable" to any other remote if you do not count site-scraping...
No, we need to focus on distributed/decentralized solution now.
In the past at least we use tons of different hosting most of them offered by ISP that actually use hosted projects, universities that actually participate in many FOSS project so while not distributed we are decentralized on "friendly" systems. Not nearly all FOSS project is on a super-big-corp server. Without any viable alternative ready to use.
A remote is a URL location of a repository. A local git repo can point to multiple remotes by using the git remote <opts> functionality. For instance, you can point your local repo to GitHub, GitLab, and BitBucket and choose which to push to using the command git push <branch> <remote>.
In the past we have tons of hosters so we can easily spread our code in many "mirror", now there is GitHub and few others, mostly on the very same "cloud".
I mean you have no damn viable remote. Single devs can share code P2P but nothing that can work instantly out of the box.
In the context of the original comment, think: "setup a /second/ remote" as the meaning. If the first 'remote' is github, the second remote could be gitlab, and so forth.
Sorry for being rude but for me is unacceptable to depend on tons of proprietary stuff from a handful of vendors. Even personal websites that use Google Fonts, some JS framework directly from the "project" CDN (too hard to keep it on your disk, up to date) etc...
We need to be interdependent or independent not dependent of few subjects that make money on us for witch us are puppets. How can we say "it's FOSS" if so? How can we have FOSS as the tip of a proprietary iceberg?
One can, if one chooses, setup a git repository on a spare PC in ones basement and have a "git repository" into which one or more collaborators can "git push" and "git pull" to/from.
In the context of the original post, to which you asked "what is another remote", the second (or third, or fourth) 'remote' can be "any git repository to which the individual has access".
Having a second remote does not, in an of itself, require that that second remote be one of the proprietary git hosting systems, nor require that it be one of the semi-proprietary or open source hosting systems. It could just as well be plain git running in repository serving mode on an old PC.
See the documentation for the "git http-backend" and "git daemon" commands that are built into the git distribution.
now with GitHub&c excluding Savannah the sole friendly option is buy a domain, a VPS and host there the project...
That's the problem, not technical but "political" to a certain extent.
In the past someone try GitTorrent to solve this problem a bit (opening the door for "personal hosting at home" but it's a dead project now ad it was never completed. Mostly because newcomers think GitHub&c as a free space by nature, something guarantee to work always and been always free without any other "occult" cost.
When I was a bit younger I read that "internet" was a fantastic decentralized infrastructure explicitly design to being fault-tolerant and unlockable as possible to survive any critical scenario... Now it seems more a deep substrate of a modern mainframe... So deep that only few subject can really access it, all others are in their own hand...
Does this mean I no longer have to pay for these services?
"GitHub has the right to suspend or terminate your access to all or any part of the Website at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice, effective immediately. GitHub reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time."
What bothers me is that this move didn't seem as well planned and prepared for than previous changes, not a good sign. github has a certain flow, hope MS doesn't destroy that.
Thank you Github / Microsoft!
> Due to a scheduling error, we published this story one day before the embargo lifted. This feature isn’t live yet, but Github will formally unveil it tomorrow. When that happens, we’ll update this post with a link to the official announcement.
Also... kinda unfair to others.
What a weird way to thank a company. I get it, but still.
GitHub also doesn’t live in a vacuum and this is likely not puuuurely done out of the goodness of MS’s heart. There may have been some strategy wrt gitlab and bitbucket taken into consideration. Dare I say... competition?
I don’t doubt their goodwill, but let’s not pretend the market is about that for MS.
Edit—ah I now see the “thank you” in parent’s post. Ok disregard this, then. Totally fair. I’m dumb. :)
Microsoft will be more than happy to use GitHub for analytics, AI/ML research and to drive developers to their other offerings, especially their cloud ones.
Edit: Updated error from "lost" to "loss"
Now that they're part of Microsoft, Github's corporate goal isn't to be financially solvent anymore, it is to be a loss-leader for Microsoft's other products. Hook people with github, and then get money from them by offering integrations with Azure, Office, Windows, Sharepoint, etc.
I believe individual paid accounts were a tiny fraction of total revenue.
With AWS’s quality of service going downhill, and Google’s apparent inability to execute, this gives MS a huge advantage. Remember, AWS is pretty much how Amazon stays profitable.
That’s the one I have too
Thankless business is killing us culturally.
This will also make me a little more cautious as a consumer, since they're voluntarily removing the incentive for me to pay for their services upfront.
> there's no reason for me to keep my subscription...
Could be totally wrong, but I expect there may be some incentive to induce folks to keep their paid plan.
But now that I'm on gitlab, I'm finding I like it better mainly because of the docker-based continuous integration feature. Managing contributors and 2FA without all that "organization" cruft is handy too.
Wouldn’t it be great though if you could kill content from the internet by simply removing the source. Privacy concerns would probably become less of an issue.
1.) Author submits an article often as a word file.
2.) Editor starts working on the word file.
3.) Author and editor do 1-5 rounds of edits using track changes.
4.) Editor says "Great, post it to run at xx:xx on mm-dd."
5.) The author actually logs in and makes the post.
If you're thinking that technology we use every day could solve this problem, you're right! Alas, it's harder to fix years of habits than the technical issues behind the habits.
Would GitHub be peeved if another source published this before their official PR statement?
It's not enough to pull me from GitLab just yet, but if I keep having 10MB+ issues there, I'll switch.
Happens with bash in windows or GitHub Desktop. No one has ever been able to fix it. I have just tried to not use large files.
So, what's their social graph play?
This is more about getting people to use (or keep using) GitHub for their personal projects so that it seems like a natural/obvious/default choice for a bigger-budget project, and that's where the revenue is.
And guess what they want... "Private code to know what people are working on."
> (I say this -- because last time I said something negative they banned me).
I have the impression that they banned your GitHub account because of your username .
I like to think that increased competition from us (GitLab) contributed to this change, we recently passed 10m repositories on GitLab.com
At GitLab we think that repositories will become a commodity and we're focussing on making a single application for the entire DevOps lifecycle.
I think Microsoft will try to generate revenue with people using Azure more instead of paying for repos.
Also see our blog post https://about.gitlab.com/2019/01/07/github-offering-free-pri...
I think a more encouraging move would be to have people with all experiences share as much of their progress as possible so that people who are getting started can find inspiration and learn to overcome their "imposter" feelings.
> Oh fuck me.
> I just accidentally published a major piece of news one day early because I've got butterfingers and typed the wrong number in the scheduler.
> Is it too early to start drinking?
> Wordpress is fucking stupid. If you schedule something for \in the past\* it should say "er, are you sure?" instead of just immediately publishing the post.*
What I find most interesting about the fiasco is that TheNextWeb.com's editorial process consists of the stock Wordpress "Schedule a post" function  which includes this lovely tidbit:
> Tip: Always double check the date at the top of this calendar before clicking publish, and verify that it correctly says AM or PM
Trying it out in a test instance of Wordpress, he's correct: The initial status of a new post is "publish immediately."  Clicking "Edit" brings up a date editor.  And "OK" doesn't warn you if your date is in the past.  Finally, clicking the "Publish" (which could read "Schedule") generates a post with the URL /01/05/ that's visible immediately with no warning. 
Note the visibility and status options above the date: Wordpress does support some options for "draft" or "pending review" options with private/password-only visibility, but apparently TNW - a business that draws $15 million in revenue, is among the top 20,000 websites, and has dozens of employees - didn't use them before this oops.
I somehow assumed that there would be a red-tape process involving legal, editorial, and managerial oversight before you could get any content to the front page of a site like this. Not sure after seeing this if TNW is just playing fast and loose, or if everyone is...