Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Sunday May 31 2015, @02:57AM   Printer-friendly
from the where-will-they-store-the-source-code? dept.

Chris Ball, about whom I know very little, gave a talk to the Data Terra Nemo conference on 23/24 May in Berlin. From the conference site, I gathered the following: "Data Terra Nemo is a technical conference for discussing the ideas behind systems and protocols without centralized ownership and how they impact the landscape of the Internet".

Chris gave a presentation regarding a decentralized git repository which he has dubbed 'GitTorrent'. His notes, which he describes as an 'aspirational transcript' of the talk, take the story up:

Why a decentralized GitHub?

First, the practical reasons: GitHub might become untrustworthy, get hacked — or get DDOS'd by China, as happened while I was working on this project! I know GitHub seems to be doing many things right at the moment, but there often comes a point at which companies that have raised $100M in Venture Capital funding start making decisions that their users would strongly prefer them not to.

There are philosophical reasons, too: GitHub is closed source, so we can't make it better ourselves. Mako Hill has an essay called Free Software Needs Free Tools, which describes the problems with depending on proprietary software to produce free software, and I think he's right. To look at it another way: the experience of our collaboration around open source projects is currently being defined by the unmodifiable tools that GitHub has decided that we should use.

So that's the practical and philosophical, and I guess I'll call the third reason the "ironical". It is a massive irony to move from many servers running the CVS and Subversion protocols, to a single centralized server speaking the decentralized Git protocol. Google Code announced its shutdown a few months ago, and their rationale was explicitly along the lines of "everyone's using GitHub anyway, so we don't need to exist anymore". We're quickly heading towards a single central service for all of the world's source code.

So, especially at this conference, I expect you'll agree with me that this level of centralization is unwise.

The talk continues in the first link at the start of this summary.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by RobotMonster on Sunday May 31 2015, @05:33AM

    by RobotMonster (130) on Sunday May 31 2015, @05:33AM (#190329) Journal

    Meh. Last three times I tried to get something from github via the git command line, the server would barf somewhere from 1MB to 4MB into the transfer, and then you'd have to start the whole thing all over again.
    I don't know if that was caused by Git's protocol or GitHub's server, but either way it's pretty unimpressive for a "newish" system powered by a major host.
    I eventually gave up.. Z-Modem supported resuming transfers way back in the dark ages.

    I generally work on closed-source commercial projects anyway; if anybody's letting GitHub or SourceForge manage closed-source projects for them, they're going to get everything that's coming to them...

    Btw, if you want to see some truly horrible C, check the original Z-Modem implementation...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4