Initially, LinkedIn was just another site where you could find jobs. It was simple to use, simple to connect with others; it even had some friendly groups with meaningful discussions.
And then it gained monopoly as the “sole” professional network where you could actually land a job. If you are not on LinkedIn now, you are quite invisible in the job market. Recruiters are concentrated there, even if they have to pay extremely high prices for premium accounts. The site is horrible now: a social network in disguise, toxic and boring influencers, and a lot of noise and bloated interface to explore.
When Google decided to close their code.google.com, GitHub filled a void. It was a simple site powered by git (not by svn or CVS), and most of the major open-source projects migrated there. The interface was simple, and everything was perfect. And then something changed.
GitHub UI started to bloat, all kinds of “features” nobody asked for were implemented, and then the site became a SaaS. Now Microsoft hosts the bulk of open-source projects the world has to offer. GitHub has become a monopoly. If you don’t keep your code there, chances are people won’t notice your side projects. This bothers me.
Rant over. I hate internet monopolies.
“Show us your GitHub”
Sure, here it is
“Looks empty”
Ya, I code for work, it’s all in private repos or in Azure Devops.
“So you don’t contribute to open source in your free time?”
No, I spend free time with my family. Again, I code for work, why on earth would I also use my free time for extra coding
“Thanks for your time but…”
Nah thanks for yours, I don’t wanna work for a company that expects me to code for them for for 8 hours and then go and code for someone else for free for more hours. That’s not a healthy work life balance, dickhead.
Edit: well this blew up (in a small lemmy kinda way). To clarify, before I coded for a living I coded as a hobby. Since I now do it full time, I don’t have any itch to scratch, I get my fill 40 hours a week. I’d ONLY be contributing to keep my GitHub looking a certain way for recruiters that one year in five I’m jobseeking and that feels like a waste of time. In reality it’ll probably be dark green the week before I started interviewing when I updated my website and then nothing before that until the last time I was interviewing.
Also, I chose to have a family and that takes effort, time and precedence over hobbies for me. If you also made that choice and you can code full time, have a healthy relationship with your wife and kids and still find time to have hobby code projects, all power to you. I don’t have the energy to open the laptop back up and get into something by the time the kids are in bed and I’ve spent some time with the wife. I’m not staying up into the night so a recruiter can glance at a chart and judge me to be a good or bad dev by how green it is.
How do I improve my skills over time? Tbh if the company I’m working for doesn’t allow me to block out a couple of hours to half day a week for learning I’m at the wrong company. I read, follow along with tutorials, experiment and think about how what I’m learning could be applied to the product I work with. Then if an opportunity to apply it comes along, I take it and either fail fast or bring something new, of value to the table.
Yup, the chart still goes green with contributions to private company repos, but those contributions also ain’t from my personal GitHub account, they’re from the one linked to my work email and I imagine they’ll close that account pretty quickly when I leave. Idk how that works tho, I only worked in one team in my whole dev career that seriously uses GitHub as source control, and they’re being moved to ADO as we type. GitHub is the go to for FOSS, but I don’t work in FOSS, I work in enterprise software and there’s much better enterprise git providers than GitHub (imho, ymmv). You can even throw the question back “do you actually use github here? If so can you tell me what lead you to go with that instead of other source control providers?” or side step it “I don’t really use github but I’m experienced in Azure DevOps and Team Foundation Server plus I’m fluent in git command line so I’ll be able to skill up in GitHub specifics pretty quickly if I need to”. Interviews are two way streets, I’m interviewing a company as much as they’re interviewing me, I have standards on where I’ll choose to work.
If you want a portfolio, I’ve got one, it’s on my website, the url of which is on my cv. Knock yourself out, sign up if you like, it’s public. I even updated it just for you last week.
Y’know why recruiters ask to see your github? Because they read in a book or a blog somewhere that that’s what they should ask when interviewing developers. 21 year old graduate developers looking for their first junior position, sure, maybe. That isn’t all devs tho.
I’d love to see recruiters who recruit in their free time, or surgeons who perform surgery in their free time.
…or surgeons who perform surgery in their free time.
I suspect surgeons doing surgery in their off hours wouldn’t be just weird, but also very creepy.
Well, some people regard coding as a hobby…
Sysadmining is a lifestyle
What they’re asking for is a public portfolio.
Obviously, you can’t give them code that legally belongs to a past employer and they’re not allowed to look to avoid accusations of copyright infringement.
Especially if they do any reverse-engineering for interoperability, there must be zero suspicion that they were inspired by code they’re not allowed to use.
This is where open source contributions under permissive licenses come in.
Something shown to work in a real project is also viewed better than out of context code snippets.
When you’re essentially saying you have nothing to show them, you’re indistinguishable from someone who actually has nothing and is lying about their skills, so the onus is on the interviewers to vet you, which for various reasons may not be possible, so they’d rather just move on to someone with a clearly proven track record.
At least, there’s Codeberg, run by a German nonprofit, who’s challenging the monopoly. It is aimed exclusively for FOSS projects, private repositories are forbidden. They are running Forgejo as their bloat-free software forge server.
Now, I think every Web2 website must be operated by a nonprofit.
I see two points in your argument:
Everything becoming a social network
People working at tech companies have to justify their salary somehow and this is low hanging fruit for adding ‘features’ as all people feel some need for connection. Feeling that a place is alive with other people will motivate your more to engage with it, rather than say, your own Git hosted server. I don’t mind the social features added to GitHub as long as they don’t take the main stage, like it did in the LinkedIn transformation.
GitHub monopoly of open source
GitHub has for most of the time been the main place for open source. I don’t see a monopoly as necessarily bad as long as it remains focused on some values other than profit. I would rather have one big Wikipedia than a shitload of small fractured Wikipedias. Can it become a problem going forward, like it did with Reddit? Definitely, but I am cautiously optimistic. And in the worst case, git is heavily decentralized by design so you’re one
git remote add && git pushaway from moving. Migrating issues would be a bit more of a hassle, but surely there are solutions. And CI is not easily portable, but not a huge amount of work to convert to other formats.SourceForge went to shit when it was the de-facto location for free and open source software, now GitHub is where Sourceforge used to be. When will people learn?
No, I don’t see how GitHub it turning into LinkedIn. Everything you said are definitely new things GitHub is doing but none of them are things LinkedIn does. LinkedIn is pretty much just Facebook with career applications built-in.
As an aside, anybody looking at alternatives or just similar tools should check out pijul which is another vcs that implements a very interesting algorithm for patches. They also host a very simple interface at https://nest.pijul.com.
Honestly, as others have mentioned, I don’t agree its bloated. If anything, its actually missing a few features (like the ability to bulk change many repos with the same issue tags). Also, I like some of the new updates that are being released.
It doesn’t run slowly in ANY way.
Furthermore, Sourceforge used to be the monopoly, and honestly, that was FAR more bloated. Projects will be found on any site, if its interesting. I don’t remember ever searching for projects explicitly using Github search (I only use Google). A good project will show up anywhere.
I wouldn’t say it’s a new LinkedIn, but it’s definitely a defacto monopolio. It pains be that Cargo (the official rust packaging system) is so integrated with it. My own personal hobby projects are self-hosted on a gittea instance right now, but I still have a github account to contribute to a friend of mine’s project which is, sadly, hosted there.
Has GitHub actually done anything negative? Your comments really just sound like fear mongering, I can’t see any actual issues.
What is the bloat you’re referring to? The UI is clean and simple. Navigating and searching code is intuitive. The issue tracker is basic but reliable. Releases are clear. GitHub Actions are complex but featureful and incredibly useful. GitHub Packages are basic but useful. GitHub Copilot is damn impressive.
They scanned open source repos and made an LLM out of it. Now companies can profit from open source code without contributing back to the ecosystem. The only contribution they make is the money they pay to Microsoft for Copilot. So Microsoft is profiting from OSS code and stifling its community.
Does this outweigh the free hosting of the code? IDK
Now companies can profit from open source code without contributing back to the ecosystem.
They could literally always do that. Unless they changed the software, most open source licenses required nothing but maybe a mention of attribution (which no one will ever read). And some don’t even require that. They could also always use FOSS tools to develop software without contributing anything back. How is Copilot different from that?
And honestly, Copilot is pretty amazing for devs. Why would I care that Microsoft profits off it when it benefits us too? While I love FOSS and all else equal would choose it every time, it’s unreasonable to expect everything to be free and open source. People have to make a living somehow and open source rarely pays the bills.
I’m not sure how Microsoft is stifling the community either. They seem to have been running GitHub great and they’ve made a lot of great dev tools in recent years. I used to absolutely loath Microsoft, but these days they’re mostly alright in my book (at least from a developer PoV). Stuff like how they’ve handled GitHub, creation of WSL, VS Code, etc have all been great.
I write open source code because I want tools to exist that make the world better, coding AI allow me to make better tools faster so I’m very happy if they used some of my code to train it.
I’ve saved hours of research and key poking thanks to AI, these early ones are just the start especially as people use them to help make everything needed to create better ones. We’ll get to the point where writing a new floss tool will be as easy as describing it briefly.
They complied to the law they had to? Is this any different from other hosters?
They had to do it, but this is the downside using a git server hosted in non neutral country. You never know when USA will decide to impose sanctions on a country for whatever reason.
It is one of the reasons many European companies do not use Github, as it is USA based.
We’re going to need a replacement for github pretty soon.
There are many good replacements, you just need to stop using Github :)
Some examples: Forgejo/Gitea (self-host or hosted eg. codeberg.de), Gitlab (self-host or hosted), Sourcehut (self-host or hosted eg. sr.ht)
monopoly: the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
GitHub is not a monopoly: it has competition. If you’re upset about it’s market share, switch to GitLab, Bitbucket, or host your own instance. If you’re upset about people not being aware of the other options, be an advocate and spread awareness of the alternatives.
It’s not a monopoly, but it’s still an oversized influence on the market. I think the poster is arguing that: when have you heard a recruiter ask you for your bitbucket account? But they will look at github.
If they ask for a GitHub but you have a bitbucket send them the repo link to your bitbucket…
