Hacker News Reader

It also doesn't work very well as "making a point" sarcastically, because that largely depends on pretending github only does git, and there's very little reason to do that.

View on HN

The point being made is that we lose the decentralization benefits of Git if we tie ourselves to the proprietary functionality of centralized platforms, as the current event demonstrates. Obviously Git being decentralized doesn’t help much when GitHub is down. But why is that so? Because of GitHub’s proprietary centralized features. The comment was intended as food for thought that maybe we as an industry shouldn’t tie us so much to those features then.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if when GitHub is down we could just move to a different GitHub instance? Isn’t it sad that we can’t, although it would be very feasible technologically?

But we're not losing the benefits of Git. We still have those. We're 'losing' the benefits of decentralized build servers, but we never had those to begin with.

This is a problem to work on, but it's not a Git problem.

I feel like we kinda do this already it’s just that both servers are owned by GitHub and you can’t tell that it’s happening.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com