Why would anyone self-host a FLOSS project? Trade secrets is not a concern, nor is it barring access to the source code repository. Why would anyone waste their resources managing a service that adds no value beyond a third-party service like GitHub?
Because Microsoft will eat your ass in your sleep
Because Microsoft will eat your ass in your sleep
So Microsoft has access to Firefox's source code. So what? Isn't the point of a FLOSS project that your source code should be made available to everyone?
Mozilla allegedly stands for a bunch of stuff that is be definition incompatible with hosting code on GitHub as it is. I bet a lot of people were expecting a lot more from them and instead got this move. Well... I guess this is like unique browser ID that each installation has or the fact that it contacts a 3rd party analytics company no matter your settings - people start by complaining and eventually even say it is right. lol so much for privacy and whatnot.
Mozilla allegedly stands for a bunch of stuff that is be definition incompatible with hosting code on GitHub as it is.
I bet a lot of people were expecting a lot more from them (...)
You only speak for yourself. You do not have a mandate to speak on behalf of anyone, including Firefox users such as myself. Keep your personal opinions as personal. You have the right to have a personal opinion, but you do not have the right to pass them off as anyone else's.
Your statement is fundamentally wrong on many levels, including the fact that it goes against the fundamental premise of FLOSS which is tha
What is it in my statement that goes against that? Nothing. Just read Mozilla's Manifesto and then tell me how hosting code on GitHub doesn't go against Principle 2, 3, 4 and 7. Mozzila's missing is "to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all" and by pushing their code on Github they're making it more popular, essentially perpetuating Microsoft's dominant market position that is very likely to result in even more abuse, more ecosystems and less open solutions in the future. There's no way to justify a company with Mozilla's resources doing this.
Nothing. Just read Mozilla’s Manifesto
Your trolling skills are subpar but given this is a lazy weekend I guess I'll bite just for the entertaining value.
Let's go through "Principle 2, 3, 4 and 7", shall we?
Principle 2 The internet is a global public resource that must remain open and accessible.
Making source code available through GitHub is a realization of Principle 2. You got it exactly backwards.
Principle 3 The internet must enrich the lives of individual human beings.
I don't even know what could possess you to believe that making a software project available through GitHub would jeopardize this. Anyway.
Principle 7 Free and open source software promotes the development of the internet as a public resource.
That's what making FLOSS projects available to the public through GitHub does. GitHub, by providing managed hosting to Mozilla to host Firefox's project tree and making it available to the public, is unquestionably meeting this goal, both in its letter and its spirit.
You need to put some effort into finding things to be outraged about.
I think they were making a joke
I think they were making a joke
The missing /s, coupled with some absurd comments on this thread, make it hard to tell apart the jokes from the activists.
That's fair, but with that said, I'm gonna eat your ass
Don’t threaten me with a good time
Go on...
Because while you do have control (and "copies") of the source code repository, that's not really true for the ecosystem around it - tickets, pull requests, ...
If Microsoft decided to fuck you over you'd have a hard time migrating the "community" around that source code somewhere else.
Obviously depends on what features you are using, but for example losing all tickets would be problematic for any projects.
Apparently Mozilla won't be even accepting PRs there so it doesn't matter much.
What if you self host in AWS and Amazon decides to fuck you over? What if you decide to self from home and your ISP decides fuck you over? What if? So many what ifs... How do you even live in this world?
Yeah like, wtf
When you use a cloud solution (and especially one with a vendor lock in like Amazon) then yeah, you are fucked there too and I'd question why you did it in the first place.
If you have your own infrastructure - be it a server at home or whatever - then you can always just move it elsewhere, get some other ISP, whatever. There is no lock-in. Inconvenience, sure, but you can migrate elsewhere. That's just not true about all the other things mentioned, or the friction would be much higher.
Have you actually used anything cloud? Because there's literally no friction to move things around. Unless you decide to use proprietary features.
With AWS especially there is a shitton of proprietary stuff. Most of the friction is in knowledge however; the cloud environments differ, are configured differently, have different limitations and caveats, etc. Someone who has only ever worked with AWS will have to learn a lot of things anew if they switch. Hell there's a reason why "AWS engineer" is a dedicated role in some companies.
Now, if you only manually set up some VMs and configure them like you would a regular server then sure, it's easy to migrate. But when you are missing 99% of the features of the cloud environment are you actually using it?
For me the purpose of the cloud is the ability to deploy my projects on rented infrastructure independently of the provider. Tools like Terraform and Kubernetes help with the abstraction of providers.
As for proprietary features I prefer to use open source alternatives like Supabase, which I then can deploy to any cloud and migrate between clouds if needed.
Well then you aren't probably taking advantage of most of the stuff AWS offers and is actually really good for. Which isn't really criticism, but then I wouldn't really call it cloud? It's more like just infrastructure as a service.
Infrastructure as a service is literally the definition of a cloud. Everything is just bells and whistles.
Because while you do have control (and “copies”) of the source code repository, that’s not really true for the ecosystem around it - tickets, pull requests, …
The announcement to drop Mercurial quite clearly states that their workflow won't change and that GitHub pull requests are not considered a part of their workflow.
Also, that's entirely irrelevant to start with. Either you care about software freedom and software quality, or you don't. If you care about software freedom you care about having free and unrestricted access to FLOSS projects such as Firefox, which GitHub clearly provides. If you care about software quality you'd care about the Firefox team picking the absolute best tools for the job that they themselves picked.
Why would anyone self-host a FLOSS project? Trade secrets is not a concern, nor is it barring access to the source code repository. Why would anyone waste their resources managing a service that adds no value beyond a third-party service like GitHub?
Because Microsoft will eat your ass in your sleep
So Microsoft has access to Firefox's source code. So what? Isn't the point of a FLOSS project that your source code should be made available to everyone?
Mozilla allegedly stands for a bunch of stuff that is be definition incompatible with hosting code on GitHub as it is. I bet a lot of people were expecting a lot more from them and instead got this move. Well... I guess this is like unique browser ID that each installation has or the fact that it contacts a 3rd party analytics company no matter your settings - people start by complaining and eventually even say it is right. lol so much for privacy and whatnot.
Your statement is fundamentally wrong on many levels, including the fact that it goes against the fundamental premise of FLOSS which is that "the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software."
You only speak for yourself. You do not have a mandate to speak on behalf of anyone, including Firefox users such as myself. Keep your personal opinions as personal. You have the right to have a personal opinion, but you do not have the right to pass them off as anyone else's.
What is it in my statement that goes against that? Nothing. Just read Mozilla's Manifesto and then tell me how hosting code on GitHub doesn't go against Principle 2, 3, 4 and 7. Mozzila's missing is "to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all" and by pushing their code on Github they're making it more popular, essentially perpetuating Microsoft's dominant market position that is very likely to result in even more abuse, more ecosystems and less open solutions in the future. There's no way to justify a company with Mozilla's resources doing this.
Your trolling skills are subpar but given this is a lazy weekend I guess I'll bite just for the entertaining value.
Let's go through "Principle 2, 3, 4 and 7", shall we?
Making source code available through GitHub is a realization of Principle 2. You got it exactly backwards.
I don't even know what could possess you to believe that making a software project available through GitHub would jeopardize this. Anyway.
That's what making FLOSS projects available to the public through GitHub does. GitHub, by providing managed hosting to Mozilla to host Firefox's project tree and making it available to the public, is unquestionably meeting this goal, both in its letter and its spirit.
You need to put some effort into finding things to be outraged about.
I think they were making a joke
The missing /s, coupled with some absurd comments on this thread, make it hard to tell apart the jokes from the activists.
That's fair, but with that said, I'm gonna eat your ass
Don’t threaten me with a good time
Go on...
Because while you do have control (and "copies") of the source code repository, that's not really true for the ecosystem around it - tickets, pull requests, ...
If Microsoft decided to fuck you over you'd have a hard time migrating the "community" around that source code somewhere else.
Obviously depends on what features you are using, but for example losing all tickets would be problematic for any projects.
Apparently Mozilla won't be even accepting PRs there so it doesn't matter much.
What if you self host in AWS and Amazon decides to fuck you over? What if you decide to self from home and your ISP decides fuck you over? What if? So many what ifs... How do you even live in this world?
Yeah like, wtf
When you use a cloud solution (and especially one with a vendor lock in like Amazon) then yeah, you are fucked there too and I'd question why you did it in the first place.
If you have your own infrastructure - be it a server at home or whatever - then you can always just move it elsewhere, get some other ISP, whatever. There is no lock-in. Inconvenience, sure, but you can migrate elsewhere. That's just not true about all the other things mentioned, or the friction would be much higher.
Have you actually used anything cloud? Because there's literally no friction to move things around. Unless you decide to use proprietary features.
With AWS especially there is a shitton of proprietary stuff. Most of the friction is in knowledge however; the cloud environments differ, are configured differently, have different limitations and caveats, etc. Someone who has only ever worked with AWS will have to learn a lot of things anew if they switch. Hell there's a reason why "AWS engineer" is a dedicated role in some companies.
Now, if you only manually set up some VMs and configure them like you would a regular server then sure, it's easy to migrate. But when you are missing 99% of the features of the cloud environment are you actually using it?
For me the purpose of the cloud is the ability to deploy my projects on rented infrastructure independently of the provider. Tools like Terraform and Kubernetes help with the abstraction of providers.
As for proprietary features I prefer to use open source alternatives like Supabase, which I then can deploy to any cloud and migrate between clouds if needed.
Well then you aren't probably taking advantage of most of the stuff AWS offers and is actually really good for. Which isn't really criticism, but then I wouldn't really call it cloud? It's more like just infrastructure as a service.
Infrastructure as a service is literally the definition of a cloud. Everything is just bells and whistles.
The announcement to drop Mercurial quite clearly states that their workflow won't change and that GitHub pull requests are not considered a part of their workflow.
Also, that's entirely irrelevant to start with. Either you care about software freedom and software quality, or you don't. If you care about software freedom you care about having free and unrestricted access to FLOSS projects such as Firefox, which GitHub clearly provides. If you care about software quality you'd care about the Firefox team picking the absolute best tools for the job that they themselves picked.