Print

---

>* Myth #4 : GitHub is monopolizing open source software development.
>> "... to its unfortunate centralizing of so much free/open
>> source software on one platform.)"
>
> Convergence is not always a bad thing. GitHub provides a great, free
> service with lots of helpful collaboration tools beyond version control.
> It's natural that people would flock there, despite having lots of
> other options.

Github is free as in beer, which is awesome. I love beer. I love free beer.

There are definite benefits to having a centralized place for code. GitHub
developers and UI designers have created an excellent platform. However, I
can understand the uneasiness. In the end Github's interests are
corporate. Those interests might not always be well-aligned with our
interests.

For me the pros of centralization and the distribution of the git
repositories is enough for me to strongly advocate for Github, but there
are cons and I wouldn't call them myths.

-Stephanie 



On 2/20/13 8:20 AM, "Shaun Ellis" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> > (As a general rule, for every programmer who prefers tool A, and says
> > that everybody should use it, there¹s a programmer who disparages tool
> > A, and advocates tool B. So take what we say with a grain of salt!)
>
>It doesn't matter what tools you use, as long as you and your team are
>able to participate easily, if you want to.  But if you want to attract
>  contributions from a given development community, then choices should
>be balanced between the preferences of that community and what best
>serve the project.
>
> From what I've been hearing, I think there is a lot of confusion about
>GitHub.  Heck, I am constantly learning about new GitHub features, APIs,
>and best practices myself. But I find it to be an incredibly powerful
>platform for moving open source, distributed software development
>forward.  I am not telling anyone to use GitHub if they don't want to,
>but I want to dispel a few myths I've heard recently:
>
>------------
>
>* Myth #1 : GitHub creates a barrier to entry.
>* "To contribute to a project on GitHub, you need to use the
>command-line. It's not for non-coders."
>
>GitHub != git.  While GitHub was initially built for publishing and
>sharing code via integration with git, all GitHub functionality can be
>performed directly through the web gui.  In fact, GitHub can even be
>used as your sole coding environment.  There are other tools in the
>"eco-system" that allow non-coders to contribute documentation, issue
>reporting, and more to a project.
>
>------------
>
>* Myth #2 : GitHub is for sharing/publishing code.
>* "I would be fun to have a wiki for more durable poetry (github
>unfortunately would be a barrier to many)."
>
>GitHub can be used to collaborate on and publish other types of content
>as well.  For example, GitHub has a great wiki component* (as well as a
>website component).  In a number of ways, has less of a "barrier to
>entry" than our Code4Lib wiki.
>
>While the path of least resistance requires a "repository" to have a
>wiki, public repos cost nothing and can consist of a simple "README"
>file.  The wiki can be locked down to a team, or it can be writable by
>anyone with a github account.  You don't need to do anything via
>command-line, don't need to understand "git-flow", and you don't even
>need to learn wiki markup to write content.  All you need is an account
>and something to say, just like any wiki. Log in, go to the
>anti-harassment policy wiki, and see for yourself:
>https://github.com/code4lib/antiharassment-policy/wiki
>
>* The github wiki even has an API (via Gollum) that you can use to
>retrieve raw or formatted wiki content, write new content, and collect
>various meta data about the wiki as a whole:
>https://github.com/code4lib/antiharassment-policy/wiki/_access
>
>------------
>
>* Myth #3 : GitHub is person-centric.
> > "(And as a further aside, there¹s plenty to dislike about github as
> > well, from it¹s person-centric view of projects (rather than
> > team-centric)..."
>
>Untrue. GitHub is very team centered when using organizational accounts,
>which formalize authorization controls for projects, among other things:
>https://github.com/blog/674-introducing-organizations
>
>------------
>
>* Myth #4 : GitHub is monopolizing open source software development.
> > "... to its unfortunate centralizing of so much free/open
> > source software on one platform.)"
>
>Convergence is not always a bad thing. GitHub provides a great, free
>service with lots of helpful collaboration tools beyond version control.
>  It's natural that people would flock there, despite having lots of
>other options.
>
>------------
>
>-Shaun
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 2/19/13 5:35 PM, Erik Hetzner wrote:
>> At Sat, 16 Feb 2013 06:42:04 -0800,
>> Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>
>>> gitHub may have excellent startup documentation, but that startup
>>> documentation describes git in programming terms mainly using *nx
>>> commands. If you have never had to use a version control system (e.g.
>>>if
>>> you do not write code, especially in a shared environment), "clone"
>>> "push" "pull" are very poorly described. The documentation is all in
>>> terms of *nx commands. Honestly, anything where this is in the
>>> documentation:
>>>
>>> On Windows systems, Git looks for the |.gitconfig| file in the |$HOME|
>>> directory (|%USERPROFILE%| in Windows¹ environment), which is
>>> |C:\Documents and Settings\$USER| or |C:\Users\$USER| for most people,
>>> depending on version (|$USER| is |%USERNAME%| in Windows¹ environment).
>>>
>>> is not going to work for anyone who doesn't work in Windows at the
>>> command line.
>>>
>>> No, git is NOT for non-coders.
>>
>> For what it¹s worth, this programmer finds git¹s interface pretty
>> terrible. I prefer mercurial (hg), but I don¹t know if it¹s any better
>> for people who aren¹t familar with a command line.
>>
>>    http://mercurial.selenic.com/guide/
>>
>> (As a general rule, for every programmer who prefers tool A, and says
>> that everybody should use it, there¹s a programmer who disparages tool
>> A, and advocates tool B. So take what we say with a grain of salt!)
>>
>> (And as a further aside, there¹s plenty to dislike about github as
>> well, from it¹s person-centric view of projects (rather than
>> team-centric) to its unfortunate centralizing of so much free/open
>> source software on one platform.)
>>
>> best, Erik
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my free software system <http://fsf.org/>.
>>