If you're enjoying opensource software and are able to contribute, be it code, documentation, bug reports, political support, products that contribute back to opensource projects, or money, please do. Even just spreading the word is a good start.
There's not much opensource devs can do against corporations, but every contribution helps us get closer to a world where working fulltime on opensource is common-place and even desired.
They don't actually think wayland won't get proper accessibility, they just hope for it and for time to reverse back to when people had to edit their x11 configs by hand. Like true linux users.
I would like to remind you that you are arguing for a monopolist. I'd agree with you if it were for a startup or mid-sized company that had lots of competition and was providing a good product being abused by competitors or users. But Github has a quasi-monopoly, is owned by a monopolist that is part of the reason other websites are being bombarded by requests (aka, they are part of the problem), and you are sitting here arguing that more people should join the monopoly because of an issue they created.
Can you see the flaws in reasoning in your statements?
OK I understand your concerns better. Thank you for explaining.
I am less concerned and don't have such a negative relationship with crypto. As long as it's not the selling point of something and decoupled from the actual project or product, that's fine to me. That others don't feel the same way is understandable.
For me, radicle is the fastest way to get off of github. All my projects are now there and anybody can contribute without signing up to yet another website i.e they don't need to have a login for each individual forgejo or gitlab instance. One radicle identity is all you need to contribute to a radicle project on any seed node.
If (when?) forgejo finally gets federation, I'd be more open to using it, but at the moment, it barely provides an advantage over radicle.
The Gemini.com article looks like AI slop to me, honestly.
In lieu of traditional client-server architecture, Radicle Link uses a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) as the core of its P2P network, a distributed ledger technology similar to blockchain that excels in speed and scalability.
DAGs are a distributed ledger? Wat?
Also if you actually looked at the code of radicle, you wouldn't find rad tokens, erc-20, or whatever else. If you further looked at the protocols you'd see that they aren't using a blockchain. Repository ownership is not handled by smart contracts either - it's all public key cryptography, which (again) is not crypto in the sense you're talking about.
To be fair, the article is old and describing radicle version 2. You can find the code here, but I can't find ERC tokens or anything like that in there, which further makes me think the authors of the article are very confused, AI, or misrepresenting the project on purpose.
Of course, it's possible that all references to crypto were removed from the archive, but it would be good to provide a link to that if you found it.
$RAD is the native token of the Radworks Network, used as the primary means to coordinate all actors, govern the treasury, and (later this year will) reward infrastructure providers on top of the Radicle network.
This I didn't know of. But I'm curious how that will be done. It is not proof of crypto being within the radicle protocol or codebase (because it isn't, I looked - maybe I missed it, but I'd like proof thereof). It might be put in there in the future but I'm pretty sure they know it would piss off people to do that.
My guess is that theyll do it like IPFS, which I don't think has crypto with the protocol but has filecoin on top to reward people who pin things in IPFS. But IPFS users can completely ignore filecoin and aren't required to use it.
There's nothing crypto in the radicle protocol. What I think you're referring to are "drips" which uses crypto to fund opensource development (I know how terrible). It's its own protocol built on top of ethereum and is not built into the radicle protocol.
This comes up every time someone mentions radicle and I think it happens because there's a RAD crypto token and a radicle protocol. Beyond the similar names, it's like mistaking bees for wasps because they look similar and not bothering to have a closer look.
Drips are funding the development of gitoxide, BTW, which is a Rust reimplementation of git. I wouldn't start getting suspicious of gitoxide sneaking in a crypto protocol just because it's funded by crypto. If we attacked everything funded by the things we consider evil, well everything opensource made by GAFAM would have to go: modern video streaming (HLS by Apple), Android (bought by Google), LSPs (popularised and developed by Microsoft), OBS (sponsored by Google through YouTube and by Amazon through Twitch), and much much more.
I see the "just create an account" and "just login" crowd have joined the discussion. Some people will defend a monopolist no matter what. If github introduced ID checks à la Google or required a Microsoft account to login, they'd just shrug and go "create a Microsoft account then, stop bitching". They don't realise they are being boiled and don't care. Consoomer behaviour.
What? I have never seen a rate limiting screen on codeberg. Ever. If I click too much on github I get rate limited. It happens so frequently, I use https://sourcegraph.com/search when I have to navigate a repository's code.
Mozilla is just a mouthpiece nowadays. Google money goes in, bullshit comes out. They are only around to accept Google money and to do so, they don't have to actually compete, they just have to be bigger than the alternatives.
If they self hosted a git forge, that would mean paying less money to some "thought leader" and we all know they can't have that!
About time. Savannah and the email contribution process are heavily outdated. Nice to see more projects realise that. Good on them for not moving to github, like Mozilla did with Firefox.
That's a well-meaning assumption, but no. My personal experiences asking for help from the linux community are very spaced out, and I understood long ago that asking for a GUI for something in linux is akin to requesting the murder of Torvalds.
For sure there are lots of people who start using linux and demand it works for their very specific usecase, verbally assault project maintainers, expect they be treated like paying customers despite getting something for free, and just do not understand that many opensource projects are passion projects with no commercial goals. I won't even get into the FLOSS purists who lose their minds when somebody does want to make money with opensource and dares use a different license.
But what I see more often is somebody asking for instructions to do something and being told to RTFM, "just do X", or copy-paste some commands into their terminal. And when the person asks for something without terminal commands, the responses are less than friendly. What worse is when developers suggest building a GUI (or even presenting a GUI) to make things easier for newcomers and advanced users going "but there's a CLI for that" or "please don't" or some other response like that.
And of course this isn't limited to the OS. As a developer, the "just use vim/emacs" crowd are equally as annoying. Trying to get neovim configured was such a terrible experience I just dropped it. Not only because of neovim itself, but because of the community too. "just learn LUA", "just copy this into your config, it's not that hard", copy-paste some link to a stack-overflow question that has nothing to do with the question I asked, etc. . It's quite similar with the Rust community that would love to lynch anybody using unsafe in their code.
It's that unhelpful and dogmatic attitude that I find is pervasive in tech communities. KDE developers and Gnome developers get along well, KDE and Gnome users could wage wars over which DE is the best. Zeus help you if you're a beginner and get in between.
Company creates problem. Requires users to change because of created problem. You defend company creating problem.
That's the logical flaw.
If you see no flaws in defending a monopolist, well, you cannot be helped then.
Anti Commercial-AI license