On 03/09/2014 15:22, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 15:05:31 +0100
> Bruno Medeiros via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>> What?? Since when is GitHub an online social network? That's
>> ridiculous..
> if it looks like a duck...
>
> it is.
>

Github doesn't "quack" or "look like" a social network. (unless you have a ridiculous broad definition of "social network": one that would encompass anything from forums, IRC, and email accounts)

Github has no notion of friends/contacts/circles like social networks. At most you can follow a person, and have followers, but that is a very peripheral feature, that as far as I know, not that many people use. It's not a *core tenet of Github*, and if it was taken away from the site today, I think people would barely notice.

-- 
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 16:33:04 +0100
Bruno Medeiros via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

google://social+coding

first link: github.

it's enough for me.

On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 07:11:03 UTC, Tourist wrote:
> Don't want to register on GitHub?
> Just use those:
> Username: d-random-contributor
> Password: d-random-contributor-password

Now, this is what I call "OpenID" :)

On Thursday, 4 September 2014 at 15:33:06 UTC, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Github doesn't "quack" or "look like" a social network. (unless you have a ridiculous broad definition of "social network": one that would encompass anything from forums, IRC, and email accounts)

It comprises a social network in a sense that every user has his own "diary" - a place to store and share his work, and users can follow and watch diaries they're interested in, and when they get notified on updates in the followed diaries, they instantly go there to like, discuss and comment. And - in case of github - contribute.

On 04/09/2014 16:36, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 16:33:04 +0100
> Bruno Medeiros via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> google://social+coding
>
> first link: github.
>
> it's enough for me.
>

If it's called a duck, but it doesn't quack like a duck or walk like a duck...

-- 
Bruno Medeiros
https://twitter.com/brunodomedeiros

On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 12:09:11 +0100
Bruno Medeiros via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

"social codding" motto was invented by github itself. github positions itself as social network so who am i to argue?

On Friday, 5 September 2014 at 11:18:34 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> "social codding" motto was invented by github itself. github positions
> itself as social network so who am i to argue?

Well, a «social network» is usually used to refer to relationships between people and does not relate to technology, although it has been used in that sense too. The term you probably are looking for is «social networking service» or «online community». Github is an online community:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_community

On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 11:40:28 +0000
via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> «online community». Github is an online community:
and i can't see any need in "online community" for source code repositories.

and talking about "developement": github's wiki and tracker are
both crap. they're ok for "me and my cat project", but that's all. yet
it's in trend with "sociality": sub-par services and BS about "being
social".

but why i really hate github is 'cause they daresay me that i *must* change my password because they failed their security (see "github RoR scandal"). not "please, change your password 'cause we are shitheads. sorry for inconvience." no. "you *must* change you password". ok, i got the point. and i must say that even my employer can't talk to me like that, not to mention a bunch of shitheads.

On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 07:20:15 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Monday, 1 September 2014 at 22:52:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 8/30/2014 7:37 AM, Dicebot wrote:
>>> GitHub is an intrusive closed ecosystem and it is legitimate
>>> concern for anyone caring about the open internet.
>>
>> How so? The github repositories are mirrored on my machine as git repositories.
>
> git != GitHub
>
> While you may still clone the repository there is no way to use any of advanced / social features without creating GitHub account and those features are exactly why it gets used. With no support for anonymous / openID input it creates situation where you have to chose - go with competitors and lose notable amount of community attention or stay with GitHub even if actual technological features provided are sub-par. In the end it encourages harmful attitude "there is nothing outside the GitHub" which of course benefits its owners much more than any actual technological advantage.
>
> It is nothing unique for GitHUb I can blame them for though - this is how absolute majority of web services is built these days and I don't see it changing without any government regulations. Does mean I must like it.

Government control would just mean controlled by corruption. The solution needs to be technological: a distributed github. I have no idea how to do that but I'm sure it's possible. Until something like that gets implemented, it seems to me that "github or GO" (without the "TF" and with a rationale) is the best option. It won't scale to force core contributors to collect patches from services x, y and z.

On Friday, 5 September 2014 at 12:24:02 UTC, Nameless wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at 07:20:15 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> On Monday, 1 September 2014 at 22:52:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 8/30/2014 7:37 AM, Dicebot wrote:
>>>> GitHub is an intrusive closed ecosystem and it is legitimate
>>>> concern for anyone caring about the open internet.
>>>
>>> How so? The github repositories are mirrored on my machine as git repositories.
>>
>> git != GitHub
>>
>> While you may still clone the repository there is no way to use any of advanced / social features without creating GitHub account and those features are exactly why it gets used. With no support for anonymous / openID input it creates situation where you have to chose - go with competitors and lose notable amount of community attention or stay with GitHub even if actual technological features provided are sub-par. In the end it encourages harmful attitude "there is nothing outside the GitHub" which of course benefits its owners much more than any actual technological advantage.
>>
>> It is nothing unique for GitHUb I can blame them for though - this is how absolute majority of web services is built these days and I don't see it changing without any government regulations. Does mean I must like it.
>
> Government control would just mean controlled by corruption. The solution needs to be technological: a distributed github. I have no idea how to do that but I'm sure it's possible. Until something like that gets implemented, it seems to me that "github or GO" (without the "TF" and with a rationale) is the best option. It won't scale to force core contributors to collect patches from services x, y and z.

Also, I can't imagine anything more "X or GTFO!!!!" than government control / state coercion.