>Perhaps I'm misunderstanding: I thought one goal of DVCS was to remove central points of failure? In that sense, isn't a central "hub" regressive?
This meme is getting really, really tiresome. Github being down is NOT a central point of failure. Most people know that setting up your own git server is trivial, literally a 3-4 step process. We know that we don't lose our files, our history, our working tree, etc.
The "git" in Github is easily replaced. The "hub" part has its own value. The communication tools, the well-presented diffs, the inline-editing capability, issues, wiki, etc. That's the value people are gnashing their teeth over.
Comments
>Perhaps I'm misunderstanding: I thought one goal of DVCS was to remove central points of failure? In that sense, isn't a central "hub" regressive?
This meme is getting really, really tiresome. Github being down is NOT a central point of failure. Most people know that setting up your own git server is trivial, literally a 3-4 step process. We know that we don't lose our files, our history, our working tree, etc.
The "git" in Github is easily replaced. The "hub" part has its own value. The communication tools, the well-presented diffs, the inline-editing capability, issues, wiki, etc. That's the value people are gnashing their teeth over.
So it seems we agree. I was asking: why use Github at all? Most of the value added of Github can be done with CSS and simple network analysis.
Because why reinvent the wheel?