GNU Rates GitHub & SourceForge With "F" Ratings

[phoronix]

Phoronix: GNU Rates GitHub & SourceForge With "F" Ratings

The Free Software Foundation today announced their evaluations of major code repository-hosting services per the standards of the GNU Ethical Criteria for Code Repositories...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=GNU-Ethical-Code-Host-Ratings

[johnc]

GitHub is getting pretty close to being SJW converged, so even an F- evaluation would probably be fair at this point.

[jf33]

Talking about GitHub where almost everyone is hosting his code these days. Is there any mechanism (like crypto signatures) in git that prevents the repository hoster from modifying files without the owner noticing it immediately after git pull or git clone? Because if not, GitHub would be in a very powerful position and could easily create backdoors in a lot of open-source software.

[plonoma]

GitHub is getting pretty close to being SJW converged, so even an F- evaluation would probably be fair at this point.

What do you mean with close to being SJW and SJW converged?

[lindgrenj6]

What do you mean with close to being SJW and SJW converged?

Check this out:

https://github.com/antirez/redis/issues/3185

[89c51]

Check this out:
https://github.com/antirez/redis/issues/3185

I can't believe there are people that stupid.

[nanonyme]

Talking about GitHub where almost everyone is hosting his code these days. Is there any mechanism (like crypto signatures) in git that prevents the repository hoster from modifying files without the owner noticing it immediately after git pull or git clone? Because if not, GitHub would be in a very powerful position and could easily create backdoors in a lot of open-source software.

This is probably why projects like Linux keep Github as push-only storage. You notice very fast when pushing if remote history has diverged

[c117152]

Talking about GitHub where almost everyone is hosting his code these days. Is there any mechanism (like crypto signatures) in git that prevents the repository hoster from modifying files without the owner noticing it immediately after git pull or git clone? Because if not, GitHub would be in a very powerful position and could easily create backdoors in a lot of open-source software.

I believe git is hashed with a checksum per file and commit. You could also write a small script to sign each individual file with your own public key using PGP like people sometimes do on email patch submissions

[zanny]

Hopefully gitlab starts working towards being more freedom accommodating without risking their revenue streams. Just as an example, KDE was considering replacements for its ancient reviewboard system and is now using Phabricator (which I still cannot stand, its workflow is so alien to the more collaborative friendly merging github / gitlab demonstrate) because of the consumer / commercial split.

Something as simple as relicensing gitlab as AGPL and giving out third party proprietary licenses or offering their enterprise plugins (like visual studio integration) as proprietary would greatly increase their reasonability of use in free software ecosystems.

As it is, KDE really had no choice. A lot of large-scale project fundamentals like LDAP and need things like tagging and hooks, so to not offer those in the community edition kills it as a real competitive option. It is just a shame, because gitlab is the best UX I have ever seen in project management IMO.

[torsionbar28]

Check this out:
https://github.com/antirez/redis/issues/3185

Yikes that's pathetic. These "offended" people should find a new line of work. Flipping burgers seems more their speed.