[sylpheed:37045] Re: Github or not Github, this is the question

[Xavier B.]

As user point of view, this discussion is out of scope of this mailing list. Just a pointing: of you want open source git hosting service, repo.or.cz is a good alternative. But it's just an opinion.
The best I think maintainer of sylpheed could do is to install gitea in his own host and it will be open source, libre and whatever you like.

Xavier

On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 08:56:17 +0100
Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve at sohara.org> ha escrit:

> On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 07:09:35 -0400
> k0 at trixtar.org wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:58:18 +0100
> > "1.anonimo.italiano at gmail.com" <1.anonimo.italiano at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > M$ never had stopped the war against 
> > > the Open Source Universe.
> > ...
> > > - I will not continue to follow the project, 
> > > nor continue to use Sylpheed if it goes under r
> > > M$ umbrella. Period.
> > 
> > Seconded, out of hand
> 
> 	This is a bizarre and misinformed attitude.
> 
> 	Sure Microsoft is a money grabbing enterprise with no morals like
> nearly every multi-national company, but they aren't at war with open
> source they just want to ensure that it doesn't interfere with the holy
> task of increasing their share value. They pretty much don't care about
> Linux on the desktop, what browser you use or whether Lotus runs these days
> because that's no longer important to them.
> 
> 	Oh and they're not going to release their code as open source
> because they don't want to be laughed at.
> 
> 	They bought github so they could sell licenses to companies to use
> it for commercial development either on github itself or on a licensed
> internal installation - it makes them a lot of money. They let open source
> developers use it free because that's good advertising (everybody knows
> about it). Gitlab uses the same model as do many "enterprise level" service
> providers.
> 
> 	I see no reason not to take advantage of this other than the
> presence of a better option or personal preference. It would of course be
> unwise to allow github to hold the only copy of the work, but git doesn't
> work like that anyway.
> 
> 	Personally I wouldn't give Microsoft a penny[1], but that wouldn't
> stop me from accepting stuff they give away in the misguided hope that I'll
> buy something or recommend anyone else to do so.
> 
> [1] One[2] action I object to has nothing to do with open source. They
> clawed their way from being a successful software company, one among many,
> to their current dominance[3] by a simple, but unethical, strategy. When a
> copy of Windows cost around 200 in the shops they told manufacturers that
> they could have it for 5 provided they installed it on *every* machine they
> sold. So that suddenly instead of getting a box and shopping for an OS so
> that you could use it you got one for free - why would you bother spending
> money to try something else.
> [2] I wasn't much impressed by their BASIC - not after hearing "We've done
> it, got a 16K BASIC in 4K of ROM" (Newbrain project) and seeing a simple
> program that extended a string at both ends run perfectly for several
> minutes and then pause for *two hours* of garbage collection before
> carrying on - this on a 4K Level 1 TRS-80.
> [3] Their isn't much left of the Microsoft that did any of that in
> operation, they're all enjoying their fortunes.
> 
> -- 
> Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve at sohara.org>