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.

  • @sirdorius@programming.dev
    33•1 year ago

    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 push away 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.