not at all the same situation. Git itself is not proprietary so all the projects can survive without GitHub if the need arises. Additionally, you don’t need an account to view the repository or its discussions. There is of course a walled garden for participation and it is an issue, however it doesn’t compare to discord, which is much, much worse.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 4 points 9 months ago

I don't care about the wall around the garden as much as I care that the wall was made by a deranged clown with no UI design experience.

[–] toastal@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

There is of course a walled garden for participation and it is an issue

And if you insist on using Microsoft GitHub, this contribution concern can be mitigated by offering an alternative mirror or a mailing list/email address to send patches. One way to help prevent lock-in would be to use MS GitHub’s repository settings & straight-up disable non-portable features like “Discussions”, “Sponsors” & maybe even the “Issues” tracker favoring a third-party option or the issue tracker of the mirror along with disabling “Actions” choosing a third-party CI option or the CI that comes with the mirror (or require checks ran locally before pushing).

[–] iarigby@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

like I said I agree, Discord is simply more terrible.

[–] coffeeClean@infosec.pub 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Having a bug tracker in that walled garden is the biggest problem. It demonstrates what I’m talking about: digital rights being disregarded.

[–] coffeeClean@infosec.pub 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Git itself is not proprietary so all the projects can survive without GitHub if the need arises. Ad

You’re neglecting the exclusion that’s inherent in Github when the need to bounce does NOT arise.

Also worth adding that during the war in Gaza some of us boycott Israel. Which implies boycotting Microsoft.

Additionally, you don’t need an account to view the repository or its discussions.

Advocating read-only access is comparable to endorsing only freedom 1 and 2, not freedom 0 or 4. Which is precisely what I’m talking about: FOSS projects that discard digital rights and partake in digital exclusion for some convenience frills.

There is of course a walled garden for participation and it is an issue, however it doesn’t compare to discord, which is much, much worse.

Bug trackers have more of a monopoly on bug reports than discord has on discussions. There are countless decentralized discussions about free software all over the place -- threadiverse, probably facebook, ad hoc phpbb forums, IRC, usenet, mastodon, mailing lists, conferences like FOSDEM … and rightfully so. Discussions don’t need the centralization that bug trackers do. General discussions also do not have the degree of importance to QA that bug tracking does.

Case in point, when bugs are reported outside of Github, they don’t get noticed by developers and triaged.

[–] iarigby@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

not sure what to answer, I made clear in my comment that github is also problematic, discord is simply worse, therefore they’re not the same like the original commenter said. I’m hoping both of them will fuck up like reddit and twitter did and more people will make effort to move away from it.