repository: a collection of files relating to one software project usually containing software code and documentation
to fork: to create an exact copy of someone else's repository with the intention of editing the files in that repository
pull request: asking for the changes in a forked repository to be incorporated back into the original repository
Granted, these wouldn't fit the screen which makes me think of someone actually explaining it to them in proper terms and then the journalist cutting everything out to makeit fit.
* Repository: Folder containing files of source code for programs, anyone can edit
* Forked: A copy of another repository
* Pull Request: Ask for included changes to be added to original file
Folders, files, programs and source code are concepts almost any computer user would understand, although it is not entirely accurate, the constraints aren't good. Took liberties with "anyone can edit", maybe "people can edit" would be more accurate.
repository: a pile of computer code making up a project
fork: a new copy of the project probably with changes
pull request: sends changes back to original project
I think the part that gets people most fired up about this is the complete lack of attention to detail and the "wow this is complicated stuff for smart people we're never going to understand this so let's not even try" attitude. I immediately did a mental flashback to some of the educational videos I loved growing up: documentaries by the Discovery Channel, PBS, and the like, where learning was actually encouraged, not mocked.
The interviewer's style of rapid-firing the questions and not really paying attention to his answers is grating as well. She spoke like she had researched the subject for about 10 seconds, maximum.
I'm surprised nobody in the office started laughing after her opening line.
In the twitter photo, the really shameful part is not the fact that they got the definitions wrong, although that's pretty bad. It's the spelling errors and the THREE different ways of writing a word and definition:
* word: definition
* "word"-- definition (also, "e-note"?)
It's just lazy. Incredibly lazy. It's done with an attitude that shows that nobody there cares much for their work.
That's exactly what bothered me so much about it. I actually wrote a blog post on the subject. http://ryboso.me/fox-news-github-story-is-deeply-troubling.h...
Those great, factual documentaries that make learning interesting still exist. The mistake you're making is confusion most news channels for anything other than opinion based claptrap.
Bad grammar? Check.
Inconsistent formatting? Check.
Technical inaccuracies? Check.
Making up terminology (e-note)? Yep.
I've never once watched Fox News, but I've heard stories about their quality of reporting. Now I understand.
Don't you know? If a Fox-related outlet does something funny, it's special because we don't agree with their political leanings. cd groupthink && ./mock && ./ridicule.
Given that audiences have an ever-increasing SMS-, Twitter-, and Facebook-molded attention span, you are expecting the impossible to expect that television news will ever provide more than a cursory overview of anything.
The on-air presenters in most if not all cases are NOT experts at what they are reporting. They are selected based on their looks, personality, and ability to read a teleprompter without. sounding. like. they. are. reading.
But you also have to remember that news networks like Fox and CNN have to fill 24 hours a day, under intense pressure to be the first on-air with reports of "breaking news." So they can't spend a lot of time fact-checking and polishing every story. This is quite unlike the previous generation network "evening news" shows which were 30 minutes once a day and they could spend all day honing and checking the content of that 30 minutes.
Bottom line, if you want to be informed about anything, don't watch television news. Seek out longer form reporting by subject matter experts (easier than ever to find online) or go straight to the source (in this case, help.github.com would be good).
Getting upset or indignant about this is a waste of energy.
The Fox network has proven themselves to be anti-science, anti-reason and anti-intellectual. In their alternate reality, there is no global warming, there were WMDs in Iraq, and the financial crisis was caused by poor people.
The GitHub story just reinforces the notion that facts and analysis (and spelling) don't matter much in that organization.
This has less to do with left-right political leanings and more to do with reasoning about the world rationally, instead of ideologically.
And yes, apparently Fox News is terrible (I wouldn't know, I'm Australian).
But seriously, there are people outside our circle, for whom computers are not their every waking moment.
Heck, I know people for whom using a featurephone is the most advanced "computer" they touch (and to them it's a phone, not a feature-phone).
So look, I think we should cut them some slack - the reposotory typo was just embarassing and unforgiveable, and whoever let that go to air should be reprimanded - but the rest of it's, while not great writing, isn't terrible.
However, instead of lambasting it, people be constructive and positive share how they might explain it to a non-technical person?
* Repository - the source code that we turn into a program
* Forked - where we clone a "repository", and then make amendments to the copy
* Pull Request - where we try to merge our amended "repository" and the original "repository" to produce a better program
I won't cut Fox any slack, however lets ask ourselves -- did MSNBC or CNN ever cover this story at all? The gist of the Fox story was to talk about the value of the company, not the details of what a 'fork' is. Besides, how many VCs have we been in front of that don't have any clue about the tech in which they are prepared to invest millions of dollars?
Even worse is how many engineers at startups have no clue about the business aspects of investing, valuations, dilution, option pools and such. Many engineers who think of themselves as 'startup people' have no idea what convertible notes are nor even how to read a deal memo. And forget about talking about valuations -- nobody know about that, yet many people claim they're valued at $1 million or whatever without any clue about where those numbers come from. I'm generalizing of course, but the exceptions really prove the rule.
There's something in the Bible I think about casting the first stone.. It might apply here. Pointing out the inaccuracy is certainly relevant, but using that as a rationalization of pre-conceived notions about Fox isn't really fair. I remember when I was in the Army in 2003 and CNN reporters embedded with our unit had no idea about the chemical weapons about which they were supposedly reporting. How many times have I heard "machine gun" used when describing an M4 rifle.. Another example is when news outlets say 'CIA Agent' when they actually mean CIA Officer. An agent is a foreign asset, no actual CIA employee is ever an 'agent.' Yet the media gets it wrong almost constantly. Snowden, for example wasn't an 'NSA employee' as was reported by many outlets, but a Booz Hamilton employee. The reporting on Syria has been questionable as well -- not just from a bias standpoint, but from a pure ignorance of the political forces within Syria that are driving their civil war. So excuse me if I hardly give a shit about Fox getting the definition of "fork" wrong. I'm pretty sure a large number of us would get the definition wrong of the financial terms "Special Purpose Vehicle" or "Trust Preferred Security" if we suddenly switched places with a Fox Business reporter.
So sure Fox got some irrelevant details wrong, but every news outlet does that every day. Those details didn't affect the intent of the story or the material facts, so who cares? We could start an entire board on simply media misteps and it would be filled with content on a daily basis.
When you have clueless reporters telling clueless viewers the news, that hurts everyone and spreads ignorance and bias, no matter the topic.
Inaccuracies occur all the time when the last person to touch the text is a general-purpose reporter, not someone with domain expertise. It happens in reporting of economics, medicine, sports, etc.. I don't think they did all that bad considering the circumstances.
Sorry, couldn't resist =).
See, everybody can make mistakes.
A lot of that is because the reporters, not being experts themselves, just don't have the contextual knowledge to grasp the implications of what they come across in their investigation. Unimportant details get played up, subtleties are completely lost, and things with similar names get conflated.
And yet, they still trust the news to be accurate with regards to everything else :(
Fox Business is just trying to explain GitHub to its audience, which is approximately the same as the CNBC audience or the audience of any other business network. I don't see anyone making fun of the GitHub CEO for explaining his product as the 'electricity' of today's tech-based companies.
Oh my god...
Here's what people need to realize: Think of all the times you notice journalists failing with regard to topics you are an expert in. Or more than failing - outright lying or misleading. Now, multiply that by all the things other people are experts in and the things they catch journalists doing that you aren't expert enough in those other things to know about.
We make a big deal about intentionally corrupt journalism, but outright laziness is just as big of a problem.
As long as they can get the basics of it correct I really don't care if they screw up the technical details. Now not being able to pronounce or spell repository is bad, its an English word that was around long before code.
Here is my try:
Repository: a library of computer codes
Forked: when you copy one of the books in the library, make changes to it, and put it back in the library
Pull Request: asking the owner of the book in the library to combine your forked, edited book, back into their main copy
Relating it to library books is interesting...
Just from the frame in the picture, it appears that they are just trying to decribe to their viewers why Github has such a high valuation. To answer that question, they probably should just say something like: "Github is a web company that allows programmers to collaborate on writing new software." When it comes down to it, all versioning systems basically enable 2 things:
2. User tracking
I think you are right about the first one, versioning is a very simple idea but difficult to communicate in a Fox sidebar, so when talking about the core value delivered by Github to a layman, it is that many people can edit code in a controllable way.
The reason I say programmers and not developers is that I think developers is another word that the majority of society might get hung up on.
* Repository: An online folder containing computer code
* Forked: When a repository is copied, so you can edit it
* Pull request: A request for the edits you've made to your copy, be "pulled" into the original
* Fork: A copy of a repository. It is copied it can be edited independently.
Well, actually, I can guess why: "repository" sounds a bit like "suppository", and "forked" and "pull request" sound vaguely sexual. It's the kind of thing that would appeal to some people as being a bit risqué. sigh
They used "hooked on phonics".
I can see how they forked that (up).