1. 10
  1. 13

    Could we avoid promoting proprietary software in the open-source community?

    1. 12

      Proprietary software is not off-topic for lobsters and this is not an “open-source community,” even if there are a lot of people here who are very interested in open source.

      You can read more about what is and is not on topic for the site here: https://lobste.rs/about

      1. 6

        I wasn’t referring to Lobste.rs. It’s explicitly mentioned in the title that the project is open-source, so it’s presumably meant to be primarily used by the open-source community.

        1. 3

          Hi, author here.

          I think GitHub plays a big role in spreading open-source, it’s my goto place in free time, I learn a lot. I starred many interesting projects in GitHub, but find no useful way to organize it, so I create this tool for myself in the hope of helping others.

          Just out of curiosity, how would you distribute open-source projects using non-proprietary software?

          1. 5

            Hi! Here is a nice article about why free infrastructure is important for free software, with a list of free alternatives to GitHub: https://drewdevault.com/2022/03/29/free-software-free-infrastructure.html

            The project that the author doesn’t mention in order to avoid looking like he’s just promoting his own product is SourceHut: https://sourcehut.org/

            1. 3

              Thanks, I have never heard codeberg/sourcehub, seems interesting to me. I will spend more time exploring those free infrastructure.

              1. 3

                Isn’t Drew’s site banned from lobste.rs, exactly for trying to overpromote source hut ?

                1. 3

                  exactly for trying to overpromote source hut

                  It was banned less for sourcehut overpromotion (which I personally saw very little of) and more because his hot takes would create flamewars here. See the last two posts as an example.

                  1. 1

                    I fully get it. He is a controversial figure.

                  2. 1

                    Maybe. If it is, I wasn’t aware of it.

              2. 1

                What community is that?

          2. 6

            It’d be nice if this piece of software didn’t encode the assumption that the external git repos someone might want to deal with are all hosted on GitHub into the name.

            1. 8

              it’s a tool to manage your github repositories, not a general tool for managing external git repos! from a quick look at the code it works with the github api.

            2. 6

              The name is unfortunately misleading. Oh My GitHub isn’t much like Oh My Posh, Oh My Zsh, and Oh My Fish, which are all shell plugin/package managers. Oh My GitHub is a tool for interacting with a limited subset of a specific API, not a tool for customizing an environment using plugins.

              1. 2

                Sorry the name isn’t sound for you.

                Oh My GitHub’s core is written in C, and it’s meant to be used in different frontends, Emacs is one example, I hope others interested could write for other environment, such as Nvim/VSCode/Atom etc. I think Oh My GitHub is extensible in this way.

                Hope this explain my motivation naming it.

                1. 4

                  I think you misunderstand the issue, so let me offer a different wording.

                  There was a tool named “Oh My Zsh” whose purpose is to simplify configuring zsh. It started a chain of snowclones, including “Oh My Fish” and “Oh My Posh”. At least in certain circles, “Oh My *” convention became firmly associated with configuration and plugin/theme managers.

                  You, I suppose unknowingly, used that naming convention for a tool that isn’t a configuration or plugin manager. Now, whether you want it or not, there will be people who will find that name misleading because it doesn’t match a convention that was there before you.

                  It’s a bit like if you started a project named “foobuntu” that wasn’t an Ubuntu Linux derivative but, say, a text editor. Whatever your justification for that name could be, people would be guaranteed to assume that it’s an Ubuntu derivative from that name.

              2. 0

                No license?

                1. 2

                  It’s GPL-3, it’s declared in the last of README.

                  1. 1

                    Normally there’s a LICENSE.txt or similar in the root though. I didn’t catch it. +1 for GPL though.

                    1. 3

                      I have added LICENSE in project root, thanks for reminding.