Most active commenters
  • lpln3452(4)
  • (4)

←back to thread

Mozilla Firefox – Official GitHub repo

(github.com)
848 points thefilmore | 13 comments | 13 May 25 05:23 UTC | HN request time: 1.288s | source | bottom
Show context
floriangosse ◴[13 May 25 06:55 UTC] No.43970232[source]▶
I think it's actually an understandable strategical move from Mozilla. They might loose some income from Google and probably have to cut the staff. But to keep the development of Firefox running they want to involve more people from the community and GitHub is the tool that brings most visibility on the market right now and is known by many developers. So the hurdle getting involved is much lower.

I think you can dislike the general move to a service like GitHub instead of GitLab (or something else). But I think we all benefit from the fact that Firefox's development continues and that we have a competing engine on the market.

replies(6): >>43970680 #>>43971628 #>>43971800 #>>43972174 #>>43972919 #>>43983811 #
fhd2 ◴[13 May 25 08:14 UTC] No.43970680[source]▶
In my experience, most contributors who are deterred from contributing because they can't use GitHub aren't particularly valuable contributors. I'm sure there's exceptions, but I haven't seen any for non-trivial open source projects I've been involved in. I might even argue that it could be good to have a slightly higher bar to deter low quality one time contributors.
replies(11): >>43970739 #>>43970819 #>>43970821 #>>43970824 #>>43970955 #>>43971022 #>>43971133 #>>43971148 #>>43971264 #>>43971283 #>>43971354 #
1. lpln3452 ◴[13 May 25 08:38 UTC] No.43970819[source]▶
Contribution isn’t driven by a desire for rewards, but by goodwill. Friction only gets in the way. If the friction is worth it, fine - but what exactly is being lost by moving the repository to GitHub?
replies(3): >>43971289 #>>43971351 #>>43972191 #
2. Aachen ◴[13 May 25 09:57 UTC] No.43971289[source]▶
> what exactly is being lost by moving the repository to GitHub?

Alternatives to github

We lament Google's browser engine monopoly, but putting the vast majority of open source projects on github is just the expected course to take. I guess we'll repeat history once microsoft decides to set in the enshittification, maybe one day mobile OSes replace Windows and they're strapped for cash, who knows, but it's a centralised closed system owned by a corporation that absolutely adores FOSS

I don't mind any particular project (such as this one) being in Github and I can understand that Mozilla chooses the easy path, they've got bigger problems after all, but it's not like there are no concerns with everyone and everything moving to github

replies(3): >>43971353 #>>43971373 #>>43971383 #
3. stevekemp ◴[13 May 25 10:09 UTC] No.43971351[source]▶
The number of emails I get "Your website is vulnerable to clickjacking attacks, PS. how much bounty have I earned?" suggests that there are many for whom a desire for literal rewards is their sole driver.

Not to mention the AI-generated security "issues" that are reported against curl, for example, suggests there can indeed be negative value for reports, and contributions.

replies(1): >>43971538 #
4. ◴[13 May 25 10:10 UTC] No.43971353[source]▶
5. ◴[13 May 25 10:15 UTC] No.43971373[source]▶
6. lpln3452 ◴[13 May 25 10:16 UTC] No.43971383[source]▶
Did you ever use the alternatives before GitHub took off?

GitLab? It was awful. Slow, and paying for that kind of experience felt like a bad joke. It's much better now but it was borderline unusable back in the day.

Or SourceForge, before Git was mainstream? Also terrible.

GitHub succeeded because it quickly established itself as a decent way to host Git - not because it was exceptional, but because the competition had abysmal UX.

Unlike other lock-in-prone services, moving a Git project is trivial. If GitHub loses its advantages due to enshittification, you just move. Case in point: Mozilla hopping on and off GitHub, as this article shows.

replies(2): >>43971417 #>>43971670 #
7. Philpax ◴[13 May 25 10:24 UTC] No.43971417{3}[source]▶
I believe GitLab post-dates GitHub, but I otherwise agree with the sentiment.
replies(3): >>43971513 #>>43971520 #>>43971525 #
8. ◴[13 May 25 10:43 UTC] No.43971513{4}[source]▶
9. ◴[13 May 25 10:44 UTC] No.43971520{4}[source]▶
10. lpln3452 ◴[13 May 25 10:44 UTC] No.43971525{4}[source]▶
You're right. But as far as I remember, neither GitHub nor GitLab were really mainstream at the time.

I think the real competition began around the same time.

11. lpln3452 ◴[13 May 25 10:48 UTC] No.43971538[source]▶
You're right. And that's not an issue with any particular platform, but with open source projects that accept issues and PR in general.

I don't think this is the place for a debate about the overall utility of open source.

12. matkoniecz ◴[13 May 25 11:18 UTC] No.43971670{3}[source]▶
> Unlike other lock-in-prone services, moving a Git project is trivial.

not really

just moving issue tracker and discussions is highly annoying

trying to get your users to move is likely hard and you will lose many

still, may be easy in comparison

13. baobun ◴[13 May 25 12:31 UTC] No.43972191[source]▶
> but what exactly is being lost by moving the repository to GitHub?

Contributors who can't use GitHub because either 1) they are fresh and can't activate a new account 2) their old grandfathered account is no longer usable or 3) their old account id doxxed and they can no longer safely contribute under the old identity.

Once you trigger phone-number verification requirement your account is globally shadowbanned and support blocked pending SMS code verification. Aside from the privacy issue it's completely blocking people in countries to which GitHub won't even try to SMS/call.

Remember that registering a second account would be violating GitHub ToS.