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.
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.
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.Codeberg can automatically migrate code and issues from Github using a personal access token iirc.
Github packages and especially CI/CD are the real vendor locking antifeatures. All of the actions and scripts that your app/company depends on to run are completely locked to github.
Fwiw, gitea has compatible actions. Not sure how compatible, though.
Doesn’t Codeberg say it’s mostly for FOSS? They say private repos are only allowed for really small things like note keeping, so it wouldn’t be right to just move everything there from GitHub.
I can run GitHub workflows directly on my machine with ACT, I’m sure you could run that on your own private CI if you needed too. It’s not perfect, but if a lot of people started wanting to migrate I’m sure it could get better.
deleted by creator
Bro that occurred years ago. Github and linkedin are both owned by Microsoft. It is a funnel from LinkedIn recruitment requiring Github requirements from the recruiters. Unfortunately nobody who is under 30 years old saw these dumb tools getting ripped off.
removed by mod
I don’t think that’s how “gaining experience” works
What an odd thing to say
Why would you say something so controversial yet so brave?
Okay boomer. That has to be one of the most boomer things ever said.
Dude I’m 30 lmao. The fact that a moderator removed my comment that was just like “don’t use Microsoft products” is completely ridiculous. Like, have you never heard of embrace extend extinguish? I know about that and it literally was in my first years of life.
Okay boomer. Being 30 doesn’t stop you from having a boomer mentality.
Yeah dude what you are talking about is studying history lmao. Wouldn’t go so far as to say I have a boomer mentality considering my attitude about them involves [REMOVED BY ADMINS DUE TO FBI SUBPOENA]
Okay boomer
Ok zoomer
Who tf thinks that’s reasonable
I’m very split between Github (currently) providing a really nice interface/collection/way to access all kinds of open source projects and the obvious ‘out-of-control centralisation’ by the mega corp Microsoft.
It definitely got a little bit bloated the last years, but I still think it has a generally nice interface (browse code/review stuff, simple issue/PR system, simple way for CI via actions etc.).
But I really hope something like https://forgefed.org/ takes off someday, I feel like if the barriers are much lower to get onto a different network with the same user (without registering etc.) decentralisation can lead to more innovation in this space (management of all the stuff that Git doesn’t manage itself, like issues, PRs etc.).
The beauty of Git though is that it’s decentralized, so you can just mirror it on Github while mainly using a different platform. If you want a bigger userbase interacting/contributing with your project you’ll allow PRs and issues there and if not just add a link to the README that points to the platform you’re using…
I mean, both of them have common ownership. Maybe just correlation and not causation, but I’ve definitely noticed these types of changes post acquisition.
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.
I am not saying they are competing on the same niche. I am saying both sites started well, and they transformed into something worse, profiting by their monopoly on their specific markets.
It sounds like your issue is with capitalism rather than GitHub. The same logic is applicable to many corporations.
Haven’t looked at LinkedIn in years, it’s just full of low quality recruiters who “have the perfect full stack position for you” that’s clearly a front-end or backend position using obscure languages you’ve got no interest in.
Glad I don’t have to use these vultures
“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.
Well, some people regard coding as a hobby…
But not expected, and they may have selfhosted repo at home.
Sysadmining is a lifestyle
Yeah absolutely I quickly get bored playing a computer game or something, but I just love coding (in Rust obviously ^^), creating new things etc.
Fintech is easy to deal with in this regard.
“do you have code samples you can share?”
“would you be happy if an employee interviewed elsewhere and used your codebase for work samples?”
I get where you come from. I don’t code after work much, but if nobody did, there wouldn’t be much OSS. As for that interviewer, he’s a dickhead.
you can show activity without showing the details of the activity. which is at least demonstrating you’re active.
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.
Hobby: cooking, meat enthusiast
I can think of surgeon examples but I’ve never heard of Recruiters Without Borders. Unless it’s just CapGemini
I suppose this happens already, with there being a black market for human organs after all.
there are tons of developers and technical folks that still find it fun and enjoyable to work on personal projects.
i mean, how else do you build new skills or gain familiarity without stuff you don’t use at work?
Easy. Just don’t work at work and read articles on hackernews instead.
That’s called a hobby. And hobbies are great and lots of fun.
Monetizing hobbies turns them back into a job.
“programming” is so broad though. surely there’s room to have it be both work and a hobby ?
i mean, it is for me and lots of folks i know.
Yeah same as artists, would you rather commission an artist who says ‘i don’t really like art it’s just a 9-5’ or someone who say ‘art is a passion, I love creating and am part of various art communities to develop and grow my skills’
Musicians, writers, photographers, all the creative industries are full of people totally dedicated to their passion or at least deeply interested in their field - of course people are going to want to employ someone that constantly improves and evolves their knowledge and skills
Even artists don’t end up working on art every chance they get though. Most professional artists are just that. It’s the artists who haven’t made it yet that are making art in their off time
If you know an artist who works 40 hours a week at a minimum wage job and then paints for 40 hours a week in their free time then you know an artist that works 80 hours a week
i mean, how else do you build new skills or gain familiarity without stuff you don’t use at work?
Woodshedding. I can not learn as fast if I’m weighed down by the idea that every piece of code I check-in needs to be production ready.
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.
Ok but the original point still stands. Coding outside of work and at work is poor work life balance. Even my own projects I do are to learn not solve an actual problem in the world with code.
And a public portfolio is the CV that states “I worked for this company making thier products”. They might ask for the specific products, but there’s a chance some people never made public ones.
Github is for college and thesis projects. That’s what most people have on there.
The correct answer to these recruiters is still not stated yet. When they say
“Your github is empty”
People should answer
“I only produce code that actually makes money”.
Indeed. A clearly proven track record is a given, in that I worked at software company x y & z for a number of years each as a developer in these technologies and with these good references. You don’t need to see my individual contributions to understand that holding several multi-year dev positions at enterprise software houses tells you a lot.
Tbh, if my track record is in question I don’t expect to be at an interview, I expect my CV to be on a no pile.
I think the real issue is that recruiters learn how to interview graduate junior dev candidates and apply it across the board. When you interview mid/senior devs with years of experience for senior roles which require years of experience, maybe “do fizzbuzz” and “show us your open source work” is a little patronising, no?
Might just be me tho, maybe I’m just a prick. Could be.
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)
This is only true for the merge request workflow and not at all a problem for the patch workflow, which can work entirely via email (and is in my eyes simpler). Have a look at https://git-send-email.io/ if you want to learn about it. This is the true decentralized spirit of git. :)
> Have a look at git-send-email.io if you want to learn about it.
But I don’t. And that is exactly the barrier I’m talking about.
By this logic, you want a complete monopoly of a single platform? Because that’s the only possible way to have “no barrier”. Unless GitHub starts federating with some kind of standardized protocol. This is a huge technological and monetary barrier for GitHub, which is why it will never happen on its own, so if users are not willing to try platform-independent workflows then the problem is frankly not the competing platforms.
What makes you think we need a replacement soon?
GitHub is owned by Microsoft and it seems to be getting worse. It is also nearly a monopoly and that’s bad in general.
Fun fact…
A few years ago Microsoft was granted a patent on using social media data left behind to resurrect dead people as chatbots.
The more GitHub is considered to be a social network, the more extending the content there (such as the maintenance of a popular sole-contributor project) fits into a patent protected usecase.
And now you know 🌈
deleted by creator
This is the way.
I’d rather not have to register on every individuals instance for every project, for bug reporting, discussion, or simple changes.
On github it’s easy for me to contribute and communicate. On other platforms, not.
deleted by creator
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
I was talking as a user or contributor.
deleted by creator
There’s work to have instances federate, similar to how Mastodon or Lemmy work. And the admin could also enable Oauth2 login with GitHub and GitLab for easier access.
For reference, I think you want something like this: https://forgefed.org/
deleted by creator
Well I feel like all the “modern” SPA stuff that got recently added, certainly adds “some” kind of bloat on top, it’s not as snappy anymore as it once was, but I think most of the stuff is improving QoL, so I think it’s reasonable…
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…
Yep, ‘Github’ is just a placeholder. If Bitbucket had the biggest market share (god forbid) the recruiter would ask for your bitbucket.
I’ve put my gitlab link in my resume and it has never had anyone spark a question. Usually the recruiter isn’t concerned with it saying “github” so much as you try to answer it with something instead of a blank stare / left on read.
Github has always had being a job site be it’s secondary feature.
Except that it has a slightly higher bar of entry to recruiters and recruitment bots spreading toxic positivity, and anyone asking for a job is able to prove (at least some of) their value by showing off their code and how they participate publically in other repos (if at all).
Same has happened in recent versions of Gitlab. Lots of feature creep and UI changes that seem non-intuitive (at least for me)
