A Slint fanboy from Berlin.

  • 0 Posts
  • 9 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle
  • Github login does not help much… devs are on github, not on random forgjo instances. That’s where they see your project. Github is also where they put their fork of your project when they play with it. They will write comments using github markdown and won’t care whether that renders correctly or not in your forge.

    And it is where they will report issues and open a PR. It is annoying, but it is how it is. When you ask them to open the PR elsewhere they complain sinde they need to set up an account there and copy ssh key and similar things. You need a very dedicated contributor to go through with all that… especially if it is just a few lines of drive-by fixes.




  • The biggest factor to me is developer attention. I had a project on gitlab and pushed a README.md with a link to the gitlab instance into github. I got about 10 times more reactions from github, incl. PRs (where the person had grabbed the code from gitlab and did a PR on github anyway) – even in this setup. Mirroring a project to github tilts that even further.

    Not being present on github means a lot less users and contributors. As long as that stays this way there is no way around github.

    I hope federated forges can move some attention away from github, making other forges more visible… but I am not too optimistic :-(



  • It is all about whos freedom you care for: GPL protects the freedom of end users, MIT and other permissive licenses focus on the freedoms of developers instead.

    GPL defines freedoms end users of software have. It has to limit the freedoms of developers between the GPL project and the end user so that those developers can not strip out any of the freedoms the GPL wants end users to have. The hope is to build a better society by enabling everybody to understand the machines they own.

    MIT and other permissive license care for the freedoms of people using the project directly, granting freedoms to those users only. Those people are free to forward the same rights to their own users or to remove them as they see fit. Thatbis way simpler for developers to work with: Basically do whatever you want.

    Guess which option is more popular with developers and the companies that employ many of those developers?



  • supply chain attacks are a serious problem that needs addressing.

    Last I checked: I am not a supplier. So I will not invest effort to secure some supply chain for people that I do not have any obligations to: The license clearly states “no warranty” for a reason. I do those projects for fun, not to bother me with security stuff, notifications about security problems some automatic thing “found” that do not really effect my code and bogus merge requests to upgrade dependencies for no reason… this are all cool things if you are a supplier, do not get me wrong, but I am not. No, I will not invest hours of my free time to sign binaries nobody uses either or to fill out security surveys for badges I can display on github.

    If you want me to act like a supplier: Pay me like all the other suppliers you have. I doubt there is any interest to do so for the projects I have on my private github :-)

    For your own projects, it might be worth considering a move away from GitHub. (I’ve been thinking about it since Microsoft bought them.) Codeberg looks like a good alternative.

    That also has associated costs: Your project gets instantly much less visible, so you need to keep a mirror on github for visibility. Unfortunately that also means that you will also get interactions on github, so you will need to log in occasionally to not make people think the project is dead.