sfk

I'm so tired of hearing this. If you copy a $100 bill that belongs to someone else, the original owner also still has it.

Why are developers so eager to deny that code has any value?

Friedman and Hayek were not socialists. One of the points is to get rid of the massive government overhead of distributing welfare. This particular aspect is anti-socialist.

Did John Galt use free software?

Wow, -3 for this horrible comment. HN is full of idiots.

Now go on, make it another -10; it will be the only thing in your day that makes you feel that you have any influence.

Obviously source control has its benefits, but ironically often tarball-only developers produce very high quality software (the most prominent example is djb at cr.yp.to).

Conversely, GitHub is full of low quality software.

I've said this before (and was downvoted naturally):

Microsoft's new Open Source strategy needs to be viewed with exactly the same amount of suspicion as IBM's and Oracle's.

It may just be a move to reduce their expenses, since they may get unpaid software contributions and testing (Oracle's CEO pretty much admitted this in an interview).

And you are an idiot.

Yes, sgtatham should move to a secure location like GitHub. Homakov is perhaps willing to guide the transition.

I'm sure he'd appreciate a memo from Sam Altman about gratuitous negativity.

I guess linking geniuses like Emmy Noether to the Google logo is also a "noble gift".

It's advertising and manipulating people's semantic networks for fun and profit, nothing else.

How does Bernard "know" the birthday when the set has been reduced to three possible dates (before Albert's final statement)?

If there were an infallible procedure for a computer to detect which engine is malfunctioning, the fly-by-wire system could already refuse to switch off the wrong engine.

I don't see why this is an argument for full automation.

That's not what the donation page says:

https://www.fundfill.com/fund/TrueCryptAudited

There's no hint that the audit is for historic purposes.

As for your second paragraph, I already said that the TC developer might just have been polite in that mail. Technical people are often not able to stand up for themselves, especially if it comes to money.

This fact must have been known to Matt Green et al.! Why did they waste 65k on an evidently obsolete project?

Also, (as far as I know) all public evidence for your assertion is a purported email from one of the devs to Matt Green. He might just have been polite in that mail...

In realtime?

And the kind of hipsters who use neovim apparently have unlimited time for guarding threads and realtime downvoting.

And the new comment was downvoted within seconds. The stakes seem to be high in this thread...

I truly wonder what kind of idiot downvotes this. Pure propaganda.

Which practically no one actually uses.

And that revenue is large enough to justify the investment?

You misunderstand completely. Of course small random projects like flappy-bird-in-cobol may benefit from a migration. I'm talking about well established projects.

Also, the metrics you propose are quite meaningless. There are contributions that actually waste core developer's time but are grudgingly accepted either for political reasons or to shut up the proponent.

These kinds of contributions are certain to increase by a migration to GitHub.

And is it a good thing to outsource one's resume to a company that somehow, at some point has to justify a $100.000.000 investment by Andreesen & Horowitz?

How are they going to do that? By selling private repos?

Someone who cares about the project and the code rather than peripheral issues like the choice of VCS, the hosting location or "social coding".

Git has nothing to do with it: A while ago Homakov had an exploit that gave him write privileges to all GitHub repos.

It's remarkable that no one really seems to care.

I don't think that projects actually attract serious contributors by moving to GitHub.

What mental change? To accept boring non-innovations as something fundamental?

And the mechanism of putting items in a shopping cart is patented.

The spinning machines were an actual technological improvement, whereas Uber (and many other valley companies) are just replacing old middlemen with new ones.

That sort of teaches children to take orders from computers, doesn't it?

It's the pop culture mentality which is now worse than ever:

[2004] http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1039523

"So I think the lack of a real computer science today, and the lack of real software engineering today, is partly due to this pop culture."

"Like I said, it’s a pop culture. A commercial hit record for teenagers doesn’t have to have any particular musical merits. I think a lot of the success of various programming languages is expeditious gap-filling."