It should be a complete non-starter for one of the largest, and most important free software projects to be hosted on a centralized, proprietary service like Github. I can't even consider it as a serious suggestion.
> Current state makes it very hard to mange/search/fork/open-issues etc
> especially for newcomers,
> please move the project to github so we can have nice disussions
> forks/prs etc goodness.
No. Never. Github is proprietary communications tool which requires
users to accept a terms of service and login. That gives power and
influence to a single entity (and a for-profit organization at that).
Contributing to unicorn is *socially* as easy as contributing to git or
the Linux kernel. There is no need to signup for anything, no need to
ever touch a bloated web browser.
The reason I contribute to Free Software is because I am against any
sort of lock-in or proprietary features. It absolutely sickens me to
encounter users who seem to be incapable of using git without a
proprietary communications tool.
Linus seems to have a different take on OSS than most OSS warriors. I don't think he sees proprietary software as 'evil' or OSS as morally superior. I get the impression he just thinks OSS will be better in quality. Depending on the contributors, which is why he doesn't want or need endless numbers of average devs contributing to his baby.
I think his point about Tridgell's actions with BK reverse engineering were right, and El Reg was playing the OSS warrior card. It looks to me like Tridgell was trying to create a way to steal BK metadata - BK specifically required you to have a license to get that data.
OSS warriors annoy me as much as SJWs do, and seem just as narrow minded.
Hm, I don't think so. Linus never had a problem with bitkeeper being proprietary, and he actually was annoyed when Andrew Tridgell tried to reverse-engineer the bitkeeper protocol. Linus seemed very unhappy with Tridgell, not with Larry McVoy for making bitkeeper proprietary. He built git out of necessity, not out of some desire to have free software.
I don't know about that. Hg was built at the same time for the same reason but seems to have more ideology around it, and I would argue it's a superior product that just was unlucky enough to not have github built for it.
Bitkeeper was proprietary software. git is not. This dependency exists with Github only if you use issues, wiki, etc. But even those are exportable with documented APIs.
