Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNU Rates GitHub & SourceForge With "F" Ratings

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GNU Rates GitHub & SourceForge With "F" Ratings

    Phoronix: GNU Rates GitHub & SourceForge With "F" Ratings

    The Free Software Foundation today announced their evaluations of major code repository-hosting services per the standards of the GNU Ethical Criteria for Code Repositories...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...e-Host-Ratings

  • #2
    GitHub is getting pretty close to being SJW converged, so even an F- evaluation would probably be fair at this point.

    Comment


    • #3
      Talking about GitHub where almost everyone is hosting his code these days. Is there any mechanism (like crypto signatures) in git that prevents the repository hoster from modifying files without the owner noticing it immediately after git pull or git clone? Because if not, GitHub would be in a very powerful position and could easily create backdoors in a lot of open-source software.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by johnc View Post
        GitHub is getting pretty close to being SJW converged, so even an F- evaluation would probably be fair at this point.
        What do you mean with close to being SJW and SJW converged?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by plonoma View Post
          What do you mean with close to being SJW and SJW converged?
          Check this out:
          https://github.com/antirez/redis/issues/3185
          Main System: Thinkpad E585, Ryzen PRO 2700U, Vega 10 GPU, 32GB RAM, 500gb SSD, Fedora KDE Workstation
          Server: Gigabyte Brix i7H-5500, i7 5500u, 16gb RAM, Fedora Server

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by lindgrenj6 View Post
            I can't believe there are people that stupid.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by jf33 View Post
              Talking about GitHub where almost everyone is hosting his code these days. Is there any mechanism (like crypto signatures) in git that prevents the repository hoster from modifying files without the owner noticing it immediately after git pull or git clone? Because if not, GitHub would be in a very powerful position and could easily create backdoors in a lot of open-source software.
              This is probably why projects like Linux keep Github as push-only storage. You notice very fast when pushing if remote history has diverged

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by jf33 View Post
                Talking about GitHub where almost everyone is hosting his code these days. Is there any mechanism (like crypto signatures) in git that prevents the repository hoster from modifying files without the owner noticing it immediately after git pull or git clone? Because if not, GitHub would be in a very powerful position and could easily create backdoors in a lot of open-source software.
                I believe git is hashed with a checksum per file and commit. You could also write a small script to sign each individual file with your own public key using PGP like people sometimes do on email patch submissions

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hopefully gitlab starts working towards being more freedom accommodating without risking their revenue streams. Just as an example, KDE was considering replacements for its ancient reviewboard system and is now using Phabricator (which I still cannot stand, its workflow is so alien to the more collaborative friendly merging github / gitlab demonstrate) because of the consumer / commercial split.

                  Something as simple as relicensing gitlab as AGPL and giving out third party proprietary licenses or offering their enterprise plugins (like visual studio integration) as proprietary would greatly increase their reasonability of use in free software ecosystems.

                  As it is, KDE really had no choice. A lot of large-scale project fundamentals like LDAP and need things like tagging and hooks, so to not offer those in the community edition kills it as a real competitive option. It is just a shame, because gitlab is the best UX I have ever seen in project management IMO.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by lindgrenj6 View Post
                    Yikes that's pathetic. These "offended" people should find a new line of work. Flipping burgers seems more their speed.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X