Open Source

30956 readers

489 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

157

Why FOSS projects are using proprietary, privacy invasive infrastructure? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

125 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As you can easily notice, today many open source projects are using some services, that are… sus.

For example, Github is the most popular place to store your project code and we all know, who owns it. And not to forget that sketchy AI training on every line of your code. Don't we have alternatives? Oh, yes we have. Gitlab, Codeberg, Notabug, etc. You can even host your own Gitea or Forgejo instance if you want.

Also, Crowdin is very popular in terms of software (and docs) translation. Even Privacy Guides and The New Oil use Crowdin, even though we have FLOSS Weblate, that you can easily self-host or use public instances.

So, my question is: if you are building a FLOSS / privacy related project, why using proprietary and privacy invasive tools?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

@taladar

"two single points"

Ok that got me, I have no response.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The term "single point of failure" means that only that point has to fail for the entire system to become unusable. You can easily have more than one of those in a system though.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

@taladar Emphasis on "entire system".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Yeah, the whole commenting won't work if the server where the repo is hosted fails or the server where the person has an account. There is no redundancy.