Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>It is simpler and easier to set up a new git repository on a webserver than it is to do the same on github.

Is this a joke ?



If you already have a webserver, even just a ~/public_html folder (something very common for people at universities, for example, to have), anywhere on the Internet that you have SSH access to push content to (and honestly: I would find it highly unlikely that your average developer does not have at least one), you can push a local repository to it with a single shell command: you just push to a folder on the server as if it exists, it will be created, and the folder can then be used via the web server for anonymous git clones and pulls. As in: if GitHub requires even a single additional step of "type in the name of a repository into a website" it has already far lost; so no: it doesn't seem even remotely reasonable to insinuate that oinksoft's comment is "a joke". If you don't already have a working web server (again: seriously?) then setting up an account that has one in this day and age is really not going to be much harder than getting an account at github, and once you have one it will again be simpler per repository to push.


I'd argue that the "average developer" has probably never used SSH, or so rarely that it's practically as if they don't know what it is beyond a way to type commands into a remote machine. Think FTP. That is something that would be a little safer to assume that an "average developer" would have.

I have to consciously remember that a lot of the development tools I use on a day-to-day basis (ssh, git, emacs, rails, django, js unit testing, diff, etc), while commonly discussed on HN, are not actually the norm in "the rest of the world".

FTPing a pile of PHP files, versioned using .zip files, and merged by hand without diff tools seems to be the "average developer" when I start looking around a bit.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: