This project would seem to fall foul of the Git naming trademark and would likely need to rename unless they have specific permission?
> In addition, you may not use any of the Marks as a syllable in a new word or as part of a portmanteau (e.g., "Gitalicious", "Gitpedia") used as a mark for a third-party product or service without Conservancy's written permission. For the avoidance of doubt, this provision applies even to third-party marks that use the Marks as a syllable or as part of a portmanteau to refer to a product or service's use of Git code.[0]
Git has grandfathered in some projects due to their history but hasn't allowed Portmanteaus for some years:
> - Portmanteaus ("GitFoo" or "FooGit") are out. Most of the cases run into this rule. For instance, we asked GitHub to not to use "DGit" to refer to their replicated Git solution, and they[1] rebranded. We also asked "GitTorrent" not to use that name based on this rule.[1]
Regardless of your opinion of copyright, trademark IP has a pretty clear and valid reason to exist. I shouldn't be able to go sell "Coca-Cola" and hoodwink a bunch of customers; the same follows pretty clearly for OSS.
I know some of classmates from college that used to refer to "GitHub" as "git" - that always kind of bothered me, but I didn't think it was worth my time to discuss with them.
This is incredibly common with recent grads in my experience. It's really quite frustrating for me because the organization I work for has code on both GitHub (open source) and private git servers. I have to spend half an hour or more with virtually every new intern explaining the difference.
Half an hour? All I can think of is: “git is a command-line program to manage source code. GitHub is a graphical user interface that builds on top of git, and adds some features like issue tracking. We installed git on our server. This is were we host our private source code. GitHub is the place where we host our open-source source code.”
Yes, half an hour is a bit more than just "git and GitHub are different things". It also includes a bit of explaining the basics of how git really works under the hood because I've found that users who don't make that distinction also don't really know what to do when something goes wrong. I try to get everyone to a point where they can resolve most common issues without resorting to mashing buttons at random in their GUI of choice.
Git is not most properly described as a command line program either. Git is a version control protocol/system for handling files across multiple locations. Github is just one of those locations
> Git is not most properly described as a command line program either. Git is a version control protocol/system for handling files across multiple locations. Github is just one of those locations
You're technically correct of course, but remember your audience (important pedagogical consideration). These are new grads that think git and github are synonymous. A slightly less technically correct but grokkable explanation is probably a better stepping stone toward arriving at a more correct understanding. You're description is abstract, which is harder to grok for most people than a concrete example. If you want to be more technically correct and therefore launch into a discussion about DAGs you're also not going to teach them anything.
Note: there are always exceptions, and a good teacher adapts to the audience. I'm referring to the very general case, not the exceptional case.
I really hope they are new grands in something not directly involving computers, because otherwise they would have to live in a cave to not know the difference between git and Github.
This just isn't true. I really only interact with CS/CpE students/grads and I'm constantly shocked at the ability of universities to force their students to use version control without actually teaching them anything about how it works.
Likewise. It's not even that unusual to have somebody using Dropbox to store all of their code, and all they know is that there is a "better system" out there.
I was unclear about the fact that you can use them almost independently. I found that the first in this series of You Tube videos [0] made the difference very clear for me. Although his style might annoy some people, he made things pellucid. Perhaps only suitable for noobs. [0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCQHnlnPusY
Sadly I actually use it as a way of testing intern applicants and even new grads as those that actually care to make any distinction between them (and I'm pretty lose with my criteria)...tend to be brighter or at least more aware of what they are doing.
In the case of GitNews, we can add any Git repositories from any sources. In the current version it's only from Github it's through but it may be extended to Gitlab and Bitbucket in the future or even Glitch.
I had several interviewees recently flub this in interviews. When asked about their experience with Version Control Systems they said they used "Github," not "Git." A bit of a warning sign.
This would be more useful with links back to the articles. Now, it's just a list of repositories that are somehow interesting but no clue about why they are interesting.
This makes so much more sense. I was thinking it was trying to show a collection of trending item from GitHub, Reddit, and Hacker News. I was confused when everything I was seeing was only from GitHub.
I don't know why Github "hides" the trending link behind a Profile. To see the Trending link, you must go through the "explore" link first. I found it's very inconvenient for users because Trending is often a bookmarkable link when using github.
Did you use a UI framework/theme for this or was it designed from scratch? While I think there's too much whitespace, there are certain elements I really like.
> In addition, you may not use any of the Marks as a syllable in a new word or as part of a portmanteau (e.g., "Gitalicious", "Gitpedia") used as a mark for a third-party product or service without Conservancy's written permission. For the avoidance of doubt, this provision applies even to third-party marks that use the Marks as a syllable or as part of a portmanteau to refer to a product or service's use of Git code.[0]
Git has grandfathered in some projects due to their history but hasn't allowed Portmanteaus for some years:
> - Portmanteaus ("GitFoo" or "FooGit") are out. Most of the cases run into this rule. For instance, we asked GitHub to not to use "DGit" to refer to their replicated Git solution, and they[1] rebranded. We also asked "GitTorrent" not to use that name based on this rule.[1]
[0] https://git-scm.com/about/trademark
[1] https://public-inbox.org/git/20170202022655.2jwvudhvo4hmueaw...