Chinese developers fear the tech war will cost them access to GitHub
abacusnews.com
abacusnews.com
But ignoring that, it seems to me like increasingly we're wanting distributed (dare I even say: federated) code forges even outside of China as people realize quite how overly and dangerously centralized their infrastructure and company are over Github.
As a bit of a tangent, we recently learned that we couldn't provide service to people living in Crimea, because google cloud block them, because google cloud is beholden to US regulators.
Now, the EU doesn't have any sanctions on Crimea itself (because that would legitimise the annexation), but they have sanctions against Russia instead.
So, we're defacto instituting the will of the US by choosing a US operator- and I think this is true of basically everything we use today. I can't think of a single tech company outside of Spotify that is not owned by the US which is popular in Europe.
Not only do we not "own our data" our digital economy is entirely dependent on the US not being malicious.
See Skype, Nokia, Shazam.
China’s doing it too. They bought ARM shortly after Brexit.
I don’t doubt that there is a migratory factor, though I don’t believe it’s primarily due to salary or other compensation as I assume you’re inferring- a cornucopia of tech giants is going to attract talent from the world over.
So a consequence of centralisation is more centralisation.
I've heard various explanations - fragmented markets/culture means it's harder to scale.
There's less appetite/precedence for undermining regulation (ask for forgiveness rather than for permission)
Lagging perception towards "IT" sector
Discussion at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9275771
What are dev practises like - do people do Agile / Scrum? Is "post-agile" (sorry) scepticism a thing? What about TDD and CI/CD?
How about technologies, do people develop on Linux, are they using git, are american libraries/frameworks big - are people using React etc?
How about things like FP and niche languages - is there much appetite for people experimenting with new tech/languages or are Python/Java the defacto choices for application work and everything else shunned?
Is there a Chinese-equivalent to GitHub - is engineering in China big enough that they can have their own independent OSS culture? (Is companies contributing back to OSS a thing?)
EDIT: to add one last question - are developers seen as feature-factories or is the relationship between product and developers/tech more flat/harmonious than that?
https://github.com/Tencent https://github.com/alibaba https://github.com/bilibili https://github.com/baidu
Just to add to it, I remember now that JD.com(?) made a library that targets the React API but is IE8 compatible:
The vuejs development also is sponsored by chinese companies.
> What are dev practises like - do people do Agile / Scrum?
Yes. At least what passes for Agile in enterprises.
> do people develop on Linux
Yes. Huawei even maintains its own distro called Euler OS.
> are they using git
Yes. SourceSafe, ClearCase and SVN were used by different teams in the past but have now mostly converged on git.
> are american libraries/frameworks big - are people using React etc?
Yes. Although given the nature of the business, teams that can use a shiny new application framework are a bit of a niche.
> How about things like FP and niche languages
Would you consider TTCN-3 to be a sufficiently niche language?
> is there much appetite for people experimenting with new tech/languages
Containerization and micro-services took hold quite quickly.
> are Python/Java the defacto choices
C is probably the most widely used language but then again it's down to the nature of the business. Java and Python are used a fair bit and Go usage is growing fast.
> Is companies contributing back to OSS a thing?
Definitely. Huawei is regularly one of the biggest contributors to the Linux kernel each cycle. Hadoop, Postgres, OpenStack, ONOS etc. see a bit of participation. There are also projects like Apache CarbonData and OpenSDS that are primarily driven by Huawei employees.
How has the recent drama affected morale inside the company? What is the general internal view of the future?
I find that alarming.
HCSEC asked your company to update to modern OpenSSL a year ago and implement reproducible builds. Neither issue has been handled, and these LTE basestations are extremely vulnerable due to the inaction of your employer.
Source: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/28/hcsec_huawei_oversi...
Combined with the poor engineering of your employer's Windows drivers, it is reasonable to cease use of Huawei developed software. Security is obviously not a priority, leaving users of Huawei software vulnerable to any person who can be bothered to look up a few CVEs and run Metasploit against your companies products.
Poorly written Windows Driver (priv escalation): https://www.tomshardware.com/news/microsoft-backdoor-huawei-...
'Fake Agile' is a term. But I think this is global.
It is hard to find Linux/Unix people. Those that develop the skillset are hot property for the BATs. Universities universally use Windows as a platform (students bring their own laptop) with exception for '985' classed colleges who are the elite institutions. But experience and certification is always needed for a new job. There is little positive-feedback for self learning.
Java is predominant, C# number 2. There is not a lot of appetite for experimenting as company culture is largely, though not always, hours-based. Python is very thin. Front-end is quite easy.
Have a try yourself: Go to 51job.com and do a search for skills. You can see a ton of Java (5:1 vs C# and 20:1 for Go) and not a lot of anything else.
There is no equivalent to Github. Github was 'blocked' two years ago for a few days and then unblocked because development teams ceased to function, BAT, government, international.
There is a sharing culture but little understanding of licensing.
Your edit: It really depends on the company culture.
The feeling I've gotten is that there are internal communities in China, Russia and possibly Japan. Then there is the rest that clumps together in English. I'd love to get some confirmation of this though, as it is just my hunch.
When you think about it, there is almost a unidirectional knowledge transfer: plenty of Chinese people will study and work abroad and then go back to China. By comparison, how many people do you know of who do the reverse - in terms of ratios, how do these numbers compare? Open source code and academic research is all out there in English for people to read and absorb, but China also has the scale and funding to then internally propel these ideas and then publish in Chinese (if at all).
Though it sounds like there is some degree of open source and that Github is mostly the defacto in China too.
It's not just some degree, afaik Chinese companies have been really embracing open source [0]. Some argue this is the result of the Chinese cultural perspective that ideas are not owned by anyone, which open-source perfectly aligns with. [1]
[0] https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/2016/02/tencent-and-why...
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/10/25/th...
But it's haphazard. Most universities are incapable or unwilling of even running an email service and all emails go through QQ. That's not 'QQ for Domains' but just personal QQ numbers.
Not full/standard practice I think, normally just standup meeting I guess.., when I was in VMware China, some projects used scrum.
> Is "post-agile" (sorry) scepticism a thing?
No
> What about TDD and CI/CD?
I'd say TDD and CI are common.
> How about technologies, do people develop on Linux, are they using git,
Yes, all the time.
> are american libraries/frameworks big - are people using React etc?
Yes
> How about things like FP and niche languages - is there much appetite for people experimenting with new tech/languages or are Python/Java the defacto choices for application work and everything else shunned?
Yes, go/rust is gaining popularity.
> Is there a Chinese-equivalent to GitHub - is engineering in China big enough that they can have their own independent OSS culture? (Is companies contributing back to OSS a thing?)
No, there are some github like services, e.g. gitee.com, but the scale and user base is not at same scale.
> are developers seen as feature-factories or is the relationship between product and developers/tech more flat/harmonious than that?
There are lots of jokes about product&developer here in China, so you can imagine.
One thing that is distinctly and decisively different though, is the cloud provider. AWS/Azure are operating under constraint there. While Alibaba Cloud is close copy of AWS, it is not quite the same thing, and indeed is developing into its own ecosystem focus on wholesale solution other than being the build block of internet.
With ongoing trade war and Huawei's sanctions, expecting Chinese government put raising domestic technology industry that mirrors to US technology at its highest priority.
> What are dev practises like - do people do Agile / Scrum? Is "post-agile" (sorry) scepticism a thing? What about TDD and CI/CD?
A watered down fork of Agile is really common. At both companies, I've experienced poor management. No one ever asked if I had blockers, needed more resources, etc. It was just expected there would be delays and we build them into the development schedule. This can lead to weeks of getting nowhere because no one is there to help you.
> How about technologies, do people develop on Linux, are they using git, are american libraries/frameworks big - are people using React etc?
In my experience, regardless of verbal ability developers can read and write English purely because they need to do so to succeed in their jobs. There are some sites similar to github/stackoverflow in China, but in general, you need to be able to read and write English to solve your problems. In short, in my experience, people use git, and all the frameworks/libraries you're thinking of.
> How about things like FP and niche languages - is there much appetite for people experimenting with new tech/languages or are Python/Java the defacto choices for application work and everything else shunned?
Again, in a research setting, it was just like working in a US company. Lots of vetting and decision making before choosing a route, but never discouragement for some fringe tool or idea that might artificially limit our capabilities.
> Is there a Chinese-equivalent to GitHub - is engineering in China big enough that they can have their own independent OSS culture? (Is companies contributing back to OSS a thing?)
There is not a Chinese fork of GitHub. Companies do give back to OSS (see Baidu, Ali, etc) and often if the OSS product is valuable enough the company just acquires the team (see GRPC -> BRPC -> acquired by Ali for internal use). My team frequently collaborated with outside contributors and would pull from OS. This is because my lab also ran VLDB so we obviously care for the community and realize there's a lot we can't do.
> EDIT: to add one last question - are developers seen as feature-factories or is the relationship between product and developers/tech more flat/harmonious than that?
IMO unless you're in research developers are just an expense, not people and they're there to fill desks. In China the average salary for a dev is much lower both because of the skill-cap but also the quantity. If you need someone to write an android app they're a dime a dozen. If you need someone to write a new framework, that's more difficult. So in general, getting people isn't hard, but getting good people is. Thus, the vast majority of people at companies are expendable. I think this can be distilled to one example. QQ the most popular messaging app from Tencent in the early 2000s had 6,000 Android developers (still does). WeChat (also run by Tencent but under a different management style) has only 50 devs. The difference is they realized quality > quantity in recent years and learned the value of ROI.
If you have more questions feel free to ask.
>QQ the most popular messaging app from Tencent in the early 2000s had 6,000 Android developers (still does). WeChat (also run by Tencent but under a different management style) has only 50 devs.
This comment alone almost tells me everything I need to know - my impression is that tech used to be run like giant sweatshops or cost centre (like QQ) but progressively tech is more like a value generator.
>A watered down fork of Agile is really common. At both companies, I've experienced poor management.
Have you heard of other peers in China faring better? Do managers believe in the whole "Organization Y" self organizing/autonomous philosophy that underpins agile?
As a foreign developer (who isn't a research-level programmer) do I bring valuable skills to the table? As someone who didn't do a CS degree would that be career limiting?
It depends on the company. The more westernized the better the likelihood for good management. In general I’d assume looser than what you’d expect and then some.
> As a foreign developer (who isn't a research-level programmer) do I bring valuable skills to the table? As someone who didn't do a CS degree would that be career limiting?
Depends on the company. I can’t speak to all (I have interviewed with quite a few) but China is very meritocratic, meaning that if you don’t have a degree most places won’t even give you the time of day. This might be different at a startup but it is very situational. Also realize that getting a foreigner a work visa puts a huge strain on the company and many will opt to ignore you for that reason alone. Many startups will do this under the table but I wouldn’t recommend that if you want to stay in China as a career path.
Using technology/standard/service provided by US based private companies introduce risks. We are not just 'use/steal' these technologies/standard, we also heavily invest, enrich ecosystem, build services on top of them, that means if US government kill it at any time, those investments may lost too.
Based on my experience, Chinese government is so incompetent that it can't create an alternative, or initiate one, at least in the Internet industry, also China have to do business with other countries(other than US), so clearly create a private tech/standard stack is not an option. That means big companies like Huawei/Tencent/Alibaba/Baidu will start/continue to support&invest more in true open technologies, like linux/risk-v, perhaps favor true oss communities rather than google/fb owned oss projects(like android/arm/tensorflow).
Companies in countries other than China and US should also think about this risk, today US is banning Huawei, you may think it's all because China is evil, similar things happened for Japan 2 decades ago, and may still possible for India(if its population and GDP growth rate continues).
If Github were to be rebuilt in China, I do not believe that it would be redesigned with decentralization as a guiding principle. The Government would view this as a great opportunity to 'fix' issues with the current setup. The replacement would be receive funding from the Government and it would be designed with national interests (as defined by the Government) forefront in mind.
The good news is that according to @decster in a cousin comment, it may be the case that the Government is sufficiently incompetent that this may not be a risk. On the other hand, incompetence in Government hasn't stopped bad ideas from being forced on people in the past, so...
I wouldn't recommend this, but if a movement started where developers of highly popular projects started putting political content in their README.md, China would probably revisit the issue and consider blocking again.
EDIT: Just imagine this taken to the extreme, OS, programming languages, libraries, any product being developed by US companies.
Today is China, tomorrow who knows.
We wouldn't be using and paying for a service like Github if git had all the features we want/need.
How do you deal with continuous integrations and making sure things like CLAs are signed? How does issue tracking integrate there? Answer: it doesn't, it's all a major PITA to arrange.
> For Github I (1) have to create a fork (2) set it as a remote in my local copy, or if I forgot how to do it, (2.1) pull another one and copy my changes to it, (3) push my changes to my fork, (4) open a pull request in Github, which takes 3 context switches.
You mean you don't create a fork by cloning the repository onto your PC when using e-mail? Or that somehow `git send-email` is harder than `git push`? I disagree having done both. I'd gladly remove `send-email` from git for it's negative effects on FOSS, it's clearly making people think it's somehow nice to use or start using.
> there is git-bug or plethora of different bugtracking software for you.
All of them are absolutely terrible to use. The sooner all FOSS migrates to Gitlab the better - we're stifling FOSS' progress by using tools majorly out-of-date.
The same way that you do that on github: many mailing lists can send webhooks on email received, and then it's up to your CI and CLA bot to respond to that email accordingly.
> You mean you don't create a fork by cloning the repository onto your PC when using e-mail?
I mean that you must open up a browser, open the main project repository, click fork, and wait for a minute for the forking to complete so that I would be able to push to my github fork now. I don't need to waste my time doing such stuff when using email.
> Or that somehow `git send-email` is harder than `git push`?
`git send-email` is just as easy as `git push` and I see additional benefit in it integrates you message to maintainers too, not having to write it separately
> I'd gladly remove `send-email` from git
Good luck trying to do that, Linux, arguably the biggest and the most important project out there, the one for which git was originally created, still happily lives using email and mailing lists.
>for it's negative effects on FOSS, it's clearly making people think it's somehow nice to use or start using.
Excuse me, WTF? How is it negative exactly? It lets FOSS be vendor independent, it allows big projects to exist. Linux, PostgreSQL, *BSD, even git itself, uses email to collaborate. Clearly there is no negative impact as these projects are so successful.
> All of them are absolutely terrible to use.
My experience is quite the contrary. While the interfaces aren't necessarily the most beautiful thing you've seen, they have all the most common actions easily reachable. Sending bug reports to Mozzila, PostgreSQL, etc. was a good experience for me.
> The sooner all FOSS migrates to Gitlab the better.
Have you've even read the first comment of this thread? It is asking about distributed git. All of the FOSS migrating to Gitlab is a highly negative thing in my opinion. Firstly it doesn't leave space for using email, which a lot of big projects have accustomed to using, and migrating to another workflow would be a massive burden, and could discourage old contributors from contributing. Secondly, that puts all of the FOSS projects in one basket, making them more vulnerable for intervention. If <nation> wanted to deny access of FOSS projects for <another-nation>, it would just have to exercise power on Gitlab, which could fly under the radar of mainstream media, while if it was hosted on plethora of platforms <nation> would have to exercise power on all of those, which definitely couldn't go unnoticed.
Gitlab and github issue tracking isn't even that good. Many bigger projects use many states of bugs, like confirmed, in_progress, duplicate, etc. Github and gitlab just have open/closed, and that isn't good. If you want to find some bug to work on, it is a lot easier to filter on confirmed, than to look through the open bugs to find one that is confirmed, isn't being worked on by someone else, and isn't a duplicate of a bug that someone else is working on. All that Github and Gitlab bug tracker has is pretty UI, which doesn't mean good UX.
>we're stifling FOSS' progress by using tools majorly out-of-date.
The fact that those tools were created a long time ago, doesn't mean that they just stayed in those years. Tools are constantly being worked on. Linux was started in 1990s. Is it majorly out-of-date? I wouldn't say so. If it is, why are we all using it?
Claiming you don't clone the repository to your local PC is just false and will probably take more time than it does on GH.
> Excuse me, WTF?
This is what I ask every time I see someone saying e-mail is an okay way to do contributions, continuous integration and issue tracking.
> How is it negative exactly?
It's a ton of bad UX and UI. It negatively affects basically every component of development for everyone not accustomed to the bad tooling.
> All that Github and Gitlab bug tracker has is pretty UI, which doesn't mean good UX.
Better just good UI than bad both.
> Secondly, that puts all of the FOSS projects in one basket
You are out-of-touch to the possibilities available right now, Gitlab can be self-hosted.
> If <nation> wanted to deny access of FOSS projects for <another-nation>, it would just have to exercise power on Gitlab
Gitlab has no control over the independent instances of Gitlab.
> Sending bug reports to Mozzila, PostgreSQL, etc. was a good experience for me.
Sending bug reports to those companies using GH/GL has been a way better experience for me.
> Firstly it doesn't leave space for using email, which a lot of big projects have accustomed to using
So what? There's a lot of old and bad "protocols" we've killed.
> Linux was started in 1990s. Is it majorly out-of-date?
I was not talking about Linux _per se_. The way contributions and development is done is majorly out-of-date and is stifling, yes.
I clone the upstream repository first, if I see a project I want to poke at, I don't instantly fork and clone my fork.
> > Excuse me, WTF? > This is what I ask every time I see someone saying e-mail is an okay way to do contributions, continuous integration and issue tracking.
I think you forgot this: "It lets FOSS be vendor independent, it allows big projects to exist. Linux, PostgreSQL, *BSD, even git itself, uses email to collaborate. Clearly there is no negative impact as these projects are so successful."
> It negatively affects basically every component of development for everyone not accustomed to the bad tooling.
There is such thing as a good contributor. Some rando that quits on not knowing how to use a bug tracker isn't a good contributor. Somebody who takes time to learn how to use the tooling will be more beneficial to the project, than a bunch of one-time contributors whose contributions just take time to look at from main contributors. I think that having some barrier of entry really helps to conserve the time of the maintainers.
> > Secondly, that puts all of the FOSS projects in one basket
> You are out-of-touch to the possibilities available right now, Gitlab can be self-hosted.
You can build your own Chromium, but that doesn't change the fact that the web engines are getting centralized. "I only need to test on Chrome" and such. The same with hosting. The fact that you can self-host Gitlab doesn't change the fact that if everyone is hosting on Gitlab, you are putting all of the tooling to one vendor. It will devolve into "But it works on Gitlab CI".
> Sending bug reports to those companies using GH/GL has been a way better experience for me.
And would you think of the maintainers? Managing GH/GL bug tracking is difficult, as it lack features. No advanced statuses means that maintainers have to rely on hacky statuses using labels, which can get hairy really quick.
> So what? There's a lot of old and bad "protocols" we've killed.
Oh, like HTTP and FTP? Oh, wait, we're still using those. Maybe IRC? Oh wait, that is still used in development. Should we kill all of those? They are definetly old and have problems. You know what is also old and has problems? Walking by foot. So lets stop walking by foot and use bikes everywhere. Oh, you can't ride a bike in a building? Seems like we'll need to change our buildings too!
And that takes at least as much as time as pressing fork does. Leaving pull request flow at least no slower than sending a patch. That's what you were claiming at start.
> Some rando that quits on not knowing how to use a bug tracker isn't a good contributor.
How do you know that a person who doesn't want to spend time on terrible tooling isn't a good contributor? Are you using a crystal ball?
> Somebody who takes time to learn how to use the tooling will be more beneficial to the project,
Or let's just focus on working on the code not spending time on the cumbersome tooling? That'd be even more beneficial.
> You can build your own Chromium, but that doesn't change the fact that the web engines are getting centralized.
Let's talk about this "issue" when GitLab, a FOSS solution, owns 10% of the marketshare.
> Clearly there is no negative impact as these projects are so successful.
Only very few FOSS projects are that successful, who knows how many more would be if better tooling were used from the start.
> It will devolve into "But it works on Gitlab CI".
And you claim it hasn't for Makefiles, awful automake, e-mail systems? If anything the use of newer tools reduces the monoculture and stagnation.
> Managing GH/GL bug tracking is difficult, as it lack features. > No advanced statuses means that maintainers have to rely on hacky statuses using labels, which can get hairy really quick.
How big of a percent really uses "advanced statuses"? Clearly looking at Linux "advanced statuses" are not needed for even the biggest of projects. Systemd also manages very fine on GH.
> Oh, like HTTP and FTP? Oh, wait, we're still using those.
Thankfully both are dying. If you start bringing up stuff just for the sake of "see, old stuff is being used, it must be good" then keep in mind some countries also have gay people lynched, must be good, right? (Of course not.)
> Maybe IRC? Oh wait, that is still used in development.
But IRC's numbers are minuscule compared to all others. It pretty much shows that it's not as good as other solutions.
> Walking by foot. So lets stop walking by foot and use bikes everywhere. Oh, you can't ride a bike in a building? Seems like we'll need to change our buildings too!
Oh, the building is 5 stories, let's use stairs only! No, that's not how it works, we build elevators and escalators because stairs are not convenient. Oh, btw, there also are buildings where bikes and scooters are used.
https://thenextweb.com/asia/2013/01/21/the-chinese-governmen...
just that. it says it on the article even.
and honestly, any of the chinese giants now using github would have plenty of resources and probarbly motivation to set up a similar service if worst comes to worst. then people collaborating with chines would just hop over to that as reverse direction should be just fine to collaborate.
The Chinese will eventually do that themselves..
It would be hilarious if China asked for a website to be unblocked -- especially, if they end up blocking it later.
Worst comes to worse software in China is all built on old/ outdated packages they already have in the country.
To take an example of a large OSS Project hosted on Github: The Microsoft .NET Core framework[1].
If I want to contribute a code change - their guidelines require me to submit a pull request on github.
If I want to submit an issue - their guidelines also require me to log the issue on github.
This is not unusual for most OSS projects which use Github as their central collaboration point.
Today that's all A-OK for Chinese devs. The scenario discussed is if the trade-war extends, and either the US or Chinese governments block access to Github for Chinese users.
Now, perhaps it's easy enough for someone to set up a mirror copy of everything in China - but that's going to limit or block collaboration. Bug fixes, changes, issues - they're not going to get across as easily. I can't email a pull request to the .NET CoreFX team saying "Hey, I fixed this".
This is going to lead to fragmentation of popular OSS projects, and will be an overall net-loss for everyone.
Now we have Oculus, Tinder, and Uber.
I am sure whatever we are worrying now will be as irrelevant.
If you want to file a PR you need access to whatever the maintainer chose. If the maintainer wants PRs via github and won't accept them via email, your alternatives are to access github, not submit the PR, or have a proxy access github for you. Possibly a human proxy.
That said, I'd love a decentralised alternative based on IPFS or somesuch. There's probably something out there already, perhaps this may be impetus enough to cause devs to move? Seems unlikely.
Nothing stops you from publishing the same project to both github and gitlab.
Why would a project that's already happily working with the Github ecosystem want to also have to support publishing to a platform that doesn't block China? Lots more work on project maintainers.
Yes, that's very much my point - GitHub is.
To suggest that GitHub is somehow the same thing as git, but centralized (=> bad) is missing 99% of the value GitHub offers.
Someone who needs to clone your repository (e.g. you're a dependency for their project) cares.
Someone tired of using an inactive repo and trying to get an overview of healthy forks cares.
Someone whose project uses GitHub for more than just a raw git repo (e.g. issues, wiki, releases with precompiled/crossplatform binaries) cares.
Someone searching for answers who encounters a link to some GitHub gist cares.
Not if youre Joe Chinese Dev wanting to collaborate with an OSS project hosted on Github. "Hey, can you guys move everything to this service that doesn't block China so I can send you push requests/issues/etc" is probably going to go nowhere.
They can use git. They can use mailing lists. They can use carrier pigeons to exchange pull requests. That's not what the concern is about.
If the OSS project says that all collaboration work has to happen on their Github projects, and Github's forced to block China - then Chinese devs would no longer able to collaborate.
They would need someone outside China to be willing to take their pull request/log an issue/etc.
My point is to underscore the point of the ancestor of this thread: that you (the project) don't need github. You can use all the strength of git without github.
I was doing some analytics on various crypto projects on GitHub, and was surprised by the number of them that had authors without GitHub accounts. These show up in the commit API as having 'author' and/or 'committer' as null (the commit itself has an author that's whatever you set your "git config user.name/email", which may not be a registered GitHub user). You have to handle these cases or your analytics script will crash very soon, because it's a pretty common case.
Git - the protocol - helps enable a distributed edit & merge ... but Git itself is not a Schelling Point. Github is a Schelling Point. (I made a previous comment about this conceptual difference.[0])
Likewise, the HTTP protocol can't be a Schelling Point but web nodes that use http like Facebook or HN can be Schelling Points.
(One can get pedantic and argue that pure protocols like git/http/tcpip can also be viewed as Schelling Points on a relative basis (compared to 1960s AT&T leased-lines) but we don't have to dissect that because the social congregation around sites like Github happens at a higher layer than the protocol.)
>Who cares if a hosting server is lost? 5 minutes and you're up on a different server.
Google announced shutdown of Google Code on March 2015: https://venturebeat.com/2015/03/12/google-code-disables-new-...
Microsoft announced shutdown of CodePlex on March 2017: https://venturebeat.com/2017/03/31/github-wins-microsoft-is-...
Not only did both Google and Microsoft abandoned their own public code collaboration websites, they also both tried to acquire Github.[1] As we now know, MS had the better offer to Github's owners in 2018.
Both corporate giants had the money to run their own git-protocol compatible servers and yet they abandoned them for Github. Think about why did that.
Maybe the reasons are social, not technical? Therefore, spending 5 minutes to move a git repo to an unknown server doesn't actually accomplish the same thing Github accomplishes.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14894128
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=google+tried+to+buy+github
GitHub provides an easy implementation of many things that are more difficult in a decentralised model.
Huge amounts of OSS projects are hosted on Github - that's where their code is, their issues are. If you want to report issues or collaborate, you need to use Github.
The issue would also spread to other related tech, which integrates with Github.
Sure, there's ways around it, and more than likely Chinese devs would set up their own instances to work around the blocks - it would limit/reduce overall collaboration. A net-loss for everyone.
Non-Chinese business must operate with a Chinese partner to do business in the mainland. Many assume that this structure is intended to leak secrets and the Chinese company will end up taking over and competing.
To be a “fair” actor in the global economy, China should allow foreign businesses to operate in the mainland, subject to Chinese law.
Foreign companies are allowed to operate in China , subject to Chinese law
Technically
https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/07/23/chinese-protester-spla...
How much 'free speech's is there in a place that bans Winnie the Pooh because of memes:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/...
Let's just admit China doesn't have free speech in practice?
just like someone from China would experience a life of privilege and exemption from socioeconomic issues in America after their parents paid a few million dollars for Stanford tuition, and I've met people that are afraid of America because of the civil rights issues seen on the news who are completely oblivious to the circumstances that would create them.
there is a tendency to focus on things that aren't really indicative of the experience you would have, and this has nothing to do with China specifically
I see this repeated a lot on Hacker News, but it's no* longer true. Search WFOE (wholly foreign-owned enterprises).
*Fixed a typo - thanks to below comment.
Just to clarify, is not a misundertanding, usually in english if someone says " is longer true" it means it is true for a long time, but in the context of the comment, I guess what you want to say is that what many people repeat is no true for a long time, usually what you would write in this case is
" Its no longer true"
Or " Its long not true"
But no misunderstanding, just a grammatical litle note, the meaning of your comment is simple to see by the context, so just a little note
It seems obvious, but it's worth repeating, a trade agreement can be a massive net negative for an entire country, but incredibly profitable for a few people.
That isn’t true universally. Certain industries require (required?) JVs, most notably the car industry but also energy resources.
Most industries are free and clear and don’t require JVs. Microsoft, for example, has always operated independently in China, nor does Apple. Starbucks started out as a JV but has been getting its own store, especially in 2nd tiers.
(I had to look this up so I figured I'd comment to note it for anyone else who might, since the term isn't used in full anywhere in the article or parent comment chain - barring future edits.)
The thinking of the Chinese government was that as an undeveloped country, Chinese companies had no hope of directly competing against companies from the developed world. Chinese car manufacturers in 1990 would have simply been wiped out by Toyota, Ford, BMV et al. The Chinese government wanted foreign investment, so they created a middle ground, where foreign companies could exploit cheap Chinese labor and gain access to the growing Chinese market, but in which they would have to work with Chinese companies. This sort of policy makes sense for a developing country, which aspires to be more than a platform for cheap labor, but also to develop its own domestic capabilities. It actually follows in the tradition of a theory advanced by Alexander Hamilton, the "infant industry argument."
As know-how at Chinese companies has increased, however, these restrictions have started to make less sense. There are Chinese electric car companies (such as BYD) that can legitimately compete with foreign manufacturers now. As a consequence, JV requirements are also being scaled back.
The problem is China is no longer one, or at leats most countries doesn't think it is anymore. And has failed to abide by what they promised when they joined WTO. Or you can blame it on US for letting them joining without clear cut rules and terms in the first place.
The problem is China has been playing their developing country card for far too long, and if we have to argue a Country with GDP that is either 1st or 2nd by different way of measurement as developing country I think we can agree to disagree.
>Most industries are free and clear and don’t require JVs.
That is true only on paper. In reality they would still want a JV or some form of partnership. From Food Production, Restaurant Chains, to other part of the industries. If China wasn't desperate for Pork, ( Due to all sort of Pork disease ) they would not have allowed Danish Crown to operate independently after both have negotiate for years. You can try to register, but without some form of JV and somehow doing the "relationship" work for you. Nothing will get done.
Not really. But it is advised to better have one, because that makes operating in China easier.
If anything, corporate America was greedy, and now corporate America feels threatened that China is growing too fast. You threw American workers under the bus and sent the jobs to China, but you were hoping China would stay poor. For all of its huge faults and despite the human rights abuses, the Chinese government can actually get things done as opposed to here with our annual traditions of government shutdown threats and now extended periods of actual shutdowns.
Look at the progress China made since 2000. What was America doing? Greed caused a recession, we’ve fought endless wars, where one of the chief architects is now head of NSA instead of being in prison. Sure we have more technology, but is the average American better off if you look at wages? We’re more divided than ever. The jobs numbers look great in 50 years? Great job! None of those people will be ever able to retire and don’t have $500 for an emergency.
I'm implying this for both sides of the aisle.
There are definitely people who use identity more than ideology to make decisions, and there are hypocrites, but it's not strictly useful to complain about them as if they are the only people in the discussion.
I am genuinely interested because I have always regarded myself as conservative even though I work in technology. I was one of the last to get a cellphone because when they entered the market they were too expensive so was airtime to make any calls. I tend to want to improve processes using current stack before jumping on a new technology stack. I am just not into the latest fashion, I literally wear the same two pairs of jeans to work every day (interchangeably). I am intrigued because in the US it seems being conservative has a "negative" connotation if I may say so. I have always seen myself as being more cautious and not jumping on every fad.
I don't see much conservatism in republicans at all. They are not conserving the environment, they are not fiscally conservative, their politics has been starkly reactionary. At this point, I would say the label has lost all meaning.
Luckily, Americans can still vote for the Democratic party, a staunchly conservative party by all accounts.
I think in general, conservatives seem to want to see a policy work somewhere else first before adopting it nationally. That is why, imho, states rights are so important to them. However, when they do get power, they try to rush whatever changes they want through. Nevermind the fact that both parties are corrupted by money. So, like many people, their leaders seem to be hypocrites; they use arguments that appeal to conservative ideals, but only as an attempt to suppress the liberal ideas.
The American conservative movement is very much ideological, though certainly a minority these days. Influential conservative magazines and columnists pointedly withheld endorsements or actively campaigned against "the tribe" you're describing.
For instance, George Will, "Vote against the GOP this November" (2018): https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vote-against-the-gop...
> I don't see much conservatism in republicans at all.
Conservatives believe in the classically liberal principles of the American founding: the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the thinkers that informed those things. They are conserving a democratic republic based on the idea of inalienable rights. That is one of the things that is unique about American conservatism compared to European and even Canadian conservatism. There isn't a language, a monarchy, some historical border, some ethnicity, or official state religion to conserve.
Conservatives also believe in non-government institutions, principally the family, but also private organizations.
Anyway, there's not much action going on in Washington at all these days. That's not to say there's no conservative action in the last couple decades. Appointment of judges cleared through the Federalist Society probably counts. The deconstruction of campaign finance regulations probably counts.
Given that, most people I’ve talked to that are in agreement with the trade war view it as a necessary evil to force China to level the playing field. They don’t want a long term trade war.
To be clear, American interests were grounded in asymmetric hegemony over Chinese market, not for some evil world domination goals but to fuel American profits. It didn’t turn out that way so now people cry about fairness.
The US isn't magically a developed nation. It is fortunate, sure. And it has absolutely made mistakes and ill-advised compromises for the sake of growth. But universities, factories, literacy, functioning judicial systems, and infrastructure don't fall out of the sky.
It's not arbitrary that developed nations are developed.
i think different people have different meanings of free market... for some, the idea would be “let china set its own rules and let others choose or not to play by them” (libertarian) and to some it would be “we should all play [1] by the same open rules” (fair market)
to add to this, i would also claim, that what the average person is advocating for in this trade war is not “free” but “fair” markets, and this (trump/trade war) represents a strong rejection of neoliberal “free market” policies [2]
[1] https://www.wattpad.com/2144357-fair-market-vs-free-market
[2] https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/26/comment...
Even if you don't believe in "intellectual property", then you may still believe that a selective (not universal) and one-sided breaking of the relevant international and national IP laws, in favour of one country, is harmful.
In addition to that, there have been allegations (I'm not sure how true they are), that supposedly private Chinese companies have been supported by the Chinese government in ways that break WTO rules.
Sure I believe in IP. I also think other countries will do as they please when they know they will get away with it. Nation states behave in self interest and can have their own interpretations of what are black and white laws to you or me, especially so when they’re in a position of power. Or they can completely disregard international agreements. Case in point - the Iran deal.
If you don't manufacture in China, you can't compete with companies that do. As a result, every company is forced to sell out their future 20 years from now so that they don't go under today. Whether you think it's a good idea or not, government intervention is often necessary to coordinate industry-wide strategic things like "don't put poison in milk" and "don't take the sweet but deadly embrace of technology transfer."
A surveillance state can get a lot of things done. We could make our government work a lot differently here as well if you find their system better than ours.
Microsoft seems rather friendly to governments (e.g. NSAKEY).
Similarly, Microsoft has the US government as a customer too. They might instruct GitHub leadership to not complain and simply follow the requests by the US government.
Unless the executives want to go to jail, they will comply with export restrictions.
If this gets extended to GitHub (potentially likely), then that would be a disaster both for China and for open source.
Duh? Huawei was added to the US Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security Entity List. You were imagining that after years of successful open collaboration with Huawei that Google woke up one morning and decided to screw them? You should take some time and re-evaluate what biases have skewed your perspective to such an extent that you were prepared to believe such an unreasonable thing.
Surely, that sentence of mine was exaggerating. They clearly were forced. But they certainly don't care much about it or their reaction would have been different.
Muslims are generally sympathized in those circles, while huawei, and to a lesser extent, China, does not garner any sympathy, so the executives feel no moral obligation to condemn this.
> Google does not allow access to GAE from Iran in order to comply with sanctions
Are you going to stop using all USA based companies if USa adds China to sancions list?