Hacker News Reader

> they've managed to work their way into almost being beyond reproach

Yep. It's annoying as hell when I tell someone I use Bitbucket and they try to get me to change to Github. And I'm not talking about for FOSS repos, they want me to convert my free Bitbucket repos to paid Github repos, because Github.

> A (by all indications), very profitable product that wants to make money off you. That is its goal and purpose in life, and OSS furthers it.

I'd go a little further than that. Their strategy, while good for some FOSS projects, is a common marketing tool. I can use Wunderlist, Evernote, and Dropbox for free in a limited capacity as well. The thing about those strategies is that they last as long as it's in the interest of the company to provide them.

> I'd go a little further than that. Their strategy, while good for some FOSS projects, is a common marketing tool. I can use Wunderlist, Evernote, and Dropbox for free in a limited capacity as well. The thing about those strategies is that they last as long as it's in the interest of the company to provide them.

It seems to me like the solution to that is for the git protocol to extend to encompass the Github tools FOSS projects have come to rely on, so Github can never hold open source projects hostage (not that they would, but as the saying goes, "Trust but verify")

Git + IPFS [1] + GPG = distributed Github. The hard part is someone building the tooling.

[1] https://ipfs.io/

Also remember about Sourceforge. I guess some people could have been in the mood to write gratitude letters to them at some point in the past.

(Does not mean that GitHub is "bad" or be useful for some free software projects right now, just that from where I am I don't think there should be a special reason to thank such a company in the name of "Open Source" -- at least also thank Linus Torvalds to begin with!...)

There is PR to thank Linus Torvalds. I hope they merge it https://github.com/thank-you-github/thank-you-github/pull/19...

ICYMI "Dear github" https://github.com/dear-github/dear-github

> I'm fairly certain that everyone involved in that letter (including myself), is very appreciative of Github and its impact on OSS

Well then sign this one too (:

When I read the "Dear GitHub" repo my first thought was, I agree with some of this, but my overall attitude toward GitHub is gratitude and the flexibility to create whatever repo standards you want to. I then saw the "Thank You GitHub" repo and think it's a great way to express that gratitude!

I personally do not view these as rival repos. They just express different sentiment and serve two purposes (again not apposing each other).

Does this have to be viewed as a polar opposite response to "Dear GitHub"?

> Does this have to be viewed as a polar opposite response to "Dear GitHub"?

Certainly not. My comment was in all seriousness. I expect that pretty much anyone signing the Dear Github letter would also feel comfortable signing this one.

> Does this have to be viewed as a polar opposite response to "Dear GitHub"?

I can't see how it isn't. I thought the original was quite clear that they appreciated Github, but this undercuts it.

Imagine any scene where you're talking to the manager of some establishment. You say "Hey guys, this is great, but can you fix the blinds, we've been waiting an hour to not be blinded?" Someone next to you pops in with "Hey guys, I love it here!"

They've just undercut your argument without even addressing it. It is, frankly, rude.

Done, I signed it with `dear-github`, so anyone who signs `dear-github` proxies their signature to `thank-you-github`

> That letter didn't feel ungrateful or malicious at all to me, but I sure hope it didn't come off that way to others.

It might have; software engineering is a big tent, and people who touch Github (in at least someway) no doubt comprise a huge part of it. Full disclaimer, I'm biased, as I opened an issue attempting to address some potential editorial/tone issues, and the initial response was not good (a big part of that may be questions of who exactly is "involved" with the letter. How should others become involved and contribute in a way the OPs feel is constructive?)

As another commenter pointed out, not everything is so black and white. In this case, no one should be "beyond reproach", but what seem like simple issues to Issues may indeed be representative of strong product/technical decisions from an opinionated vendor. IMO it's not inherently clear that the people behind dear-github entirely recognized the nuance here. No one is looking to pick fights or troll anyone, because no, not everyone who is passionate about this issue is a meanie. That said, the original letter and the immediate response could be interpreted as brash, and to that end, I wouldn't be surprised that someone responded with thank-you-github as an opposite reaction.

Evaluate the letter based on its content, not the authors.

> Full disclaimer, I'm biased, as I opened an issue attempting to address some potential editorial/tone issues

Is this your issue? https://github.com/dear-github/dear-github/issues/47

If so, the way you've written your issue is almost incomprehensible and your point is seriously irrelevant to the requests made by the project creators.

> a big part of that may be questions of who exactly is "involved" with the letter.

Being someone who's helping with the `dear-github` repo, why does WHO is behind the repo matter? Does it change the reflections of the community who've come out to support it and sign it?

We agree, I don't think it matters. I initially believed based on the "petition" nature of the letter and adding signatories that it was going to be an inclusive effort.

Which is why I've asked and received absolutely no answer as to why one of the dear-github organizational "owners" (as labeled on Github) responses to my issue inquiry was to tell me who he was, then use that to determine my issue was not constructive.

> one of the dear-github organizational "owners" (as labeled on Github) responses to my issue inquiry was to tell me who he was, then use that to determine my issue was not constructive.

Based on the issue linked above, it doesn't look like this is what happened. Although it may have happened through some other channel.

What it looks like happened is that neither one of you were able to understand what the other's point was.