Huh? The usual pattern is that experiments belong to a user and then they graduate to having their own org iff they grow enough maintainers for that to make sense. How is that toxic or self-centered? It's just like "here's a place to do low-stakes experiments in public view". It's not particularly about ego or selfishness or whatever.
“Organizations” didn't exist until GitHub was already popular and entrenched, and it got popular and entrenched by centering the person developing the code instead of the code that was being developed: https://github.blog/news-insights/introducing-organizations/
Very strange take. A lot of software is built on trust and the people behind it. Hence why the social aspect of Github was so important to a lot of open source software.
Hey, thank you for staying polite while expressing disagreement. That's much appreciated.
To the risk it might seem surprising, I actually completely agree that trust is essential to software creation and and use.
Actually I would more broadly frame it as, no trust, no viable sustainable society, no technical/cultural artifact.
But trust and societies can be realized without individualism as underlying chief paradigm.
That doesn't mean total negation of individual though. One alternative, among others yet different approches, can be state as a metaphor of individual like a cell in a social body. Thus the term metastasis, as when a cell starts to degenerate in self centric behavior at the expense of the health of the body as a whole. On the other hand, no cell, no body.
Huh? The usual pattern is that experiments belong to a user and then they graduate to having their own org iff they grow enough maintainers for that to make sense. How is that toxic or self-centered? It's just like "here's a place to do low-stakes experiments in public view". It's not particularly about ego or selfishness or whatever.
“Organizations” didn't exist until GitHub was already popular and entrenched, and it got popular and entrenched by centering the person developing the code instead of the code that was being developed: https://github.blog/news-insights/introducing-organizations/
And they weren't free until 2020: https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/learning-about-github...
[flagged]
You are being a toxic asshole right now by accusing people of being sociopaths completely unprompted.
Honestly, pretty sociopathic behavior right here.
4 replies →
Good grief. Now the YouTube Shorts crowd is showing up here too.
Very strange take. A lot of software is built on trust and the people behind it. Hence why the social aspect of Github was so important to a lot of open source software.
Hey, thank you for staying polite while expressing disagreement. That's much appreciated.
To the risk it might seem surprising, I actually completely agree that trust is essential to software creation and and use.
Actually I would more broadly frame it as, no trust, no viable sustainable society, no technical/cultural artifact.
But trust and societies can be realized without individualism as underlying chief paradigm.
That doesn't mean total negation of individual though. One alternative, among others yet different approches, can be state as a metaphor of individual like a cell in a social body. Thus the term metastasis, as when a cell starts to degenerate in self centric behavior at the expense of the health of the body as a whole. On the other hand, no cell, no body.
I don't think it was important. It just came at a time when sourceforge was being heavily enshittified.
The most insane response I've ever read here, so far.
What a weird take on what GP said...
Bruh.
Thanks for introducing me to a term I want aware of.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bruh for those who also wonder.
[flagged]