• 1 Post
  • 89 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 11th, 2024

help-circle








  • Linux doesn’t “make you interact with the terminal.” Many linux users interact with the terminal because it’s a better tool for many purposes-- not just niche ones as you suggest. Your argument leans heavily on popularity: what most people are doing, but that’s kind of the point of the original comment. People are taught on software and OSs owned and pushed by private companies. It creates such a dependency that it’s hard for people to imagine how one can succeed without them. Knowing the terminal can help one understand GUIs better, and makes it easier to imagine building new ones or modifying existing ones. It also allows a person to recognise when a GUI is unnecessary and a task can be completed faster by keeping your hands on the keyboard and working in the terminal.


  • Not the commenter you replied to, but I change my XDG directory names to be lowercase and start with different letters. For example, Desktop, becomes “drop” (as in pick it up and put it somewhere else) and Downloads is a subdirectory dl. A program that would otherwise save to “Downloads” now saves to “~/drop/dl”. When I setup my machines I run a script including the line xdg-user-dirs-update --set DESKTOP "drop" to update the XDG directory and I delete “Desketop”. So og commenter has the option of updating their userdirs to be nested in their username if they wanted to avoid symlinking. Here’s the relevant arch wiki page and xdg freedesktop page.





  • Maybe, but if so, I bet it’s negligible. When it comes to discovery, there’s so many places I’d look for FOSS projects before going GH. Except maybe to check awesome-lists, but you don’t have to be on GH to be linked on one (and I’ve seen them popping up on Codeberg). GH’s design in general doesn’t seem to promote stumbling across new projects. Even if I’m wrong, one could always mirror on GH.

    As for contributing, if someone is willing to go though the trouble to contribute, I’d hope they’d go through the trouble of signing up on a new platform. Maybe there’s a non-zero number of contributors who would not, and that’s an unacceptable for some projects. There’s also potential for more contributors if they trust a project is living FOSS principles and less at-risk of vender lock-in. The fosstodon thread shows people care about where a project lives. The arguments in favor of staying on GH seemed mostly inertia-based.


  • pemptago@lemmy.mlOPtoOpen Source@lemmy.mlOrganicMaps asks if users care they're on GH.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    You’re right. I don’t mean to minimize the effort required. The effort required is a big part of the argument in favor of moving, or at least aspiring to move to a platform with more open and interoperable values. I can’t imagine MS will make that transition any easier as time goes on despite forgejo and others best efforts. I’ve no problem with an OSS projects using GH but I’d hope they’d take the risk more seriously in a discussion about it.

    Edit: I also don’t think the effort is wasted or insurmountable. Regarding broken links, I’ve stumbled across many projects that have changed their GH repo to a mirror and link to their new platform. And RE logistical v philosophical reasons, I consider avoiding vender lock-in to be risk management and part of a project’s long-term logistics.