Is dsource .org completely deserted?

[Nick Sabalausky]

"foobar" <foo at bar.com> wrote in message 
news:cuucmsymdqnsrurlkfpg at forum.dlang.org...
> On Tuesday, 15 May 2012 at 02:36:25 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Kapps" <opantm2+spam at gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:gvuqhcqczjqmdtpsagrj at forum.dlang.org...
>>> It would be nice to make a replacement to dsource. There's a fair few 
>>> problems with it. For one, people prefer hosting their source on Github 
>>> or Bitbucket or such, it's silly to try and get people to use your own 
>>> source control hosting instead of just pointing to one of those.
>>
>> I firmly believe that GitHub/BitBucket/etc-style features need to be
>> standard *protocols*, not features bundled inseparably to project 
>> hosting.
>> What the hell is this, 1980 all over again where data is routinely tied
>> inseparably to the software it originated from?
>>
>> It makes *no* sense for GitHub/BitBucket to be designed so that:
>>
>> 1. Forking/Pull requests/etc are all isolated from other project hosting
>> providers (It's *DISTRIBUTED* fucking version control, for christsakes!),
>> and
>>
>> 2. Interfaces [very, very VERY sloooow and half-broken ones] are tied to 
>> the
>> project hosting site/software.
>>
>> It's like that twitface shit all over again (ie, all that "walled-off
>> sub-internets" bullshit), or those god-awful "web photo-viewer" programs,
>> but with programmers - exactly the people who *should know better*. This 
>> is
>> 2012, there's *no* excuse for software design blunders that were already
>> going out of date 30 fucking years ago.
>>
>> Of course, such anachronisms will never be reverted so long as the "cell 
>> and
>> internet generation" is still around...
>>
>
> There *is* such a protocol - it's called Git.

Right, I agree, but these days, Git (or Hg) is essentially only a half-VCS 
without such things. And Git and Hg don't have such things.

> Sure it doesn't support pull requests but that's the base for
> GitHub's business model - they make money by offering useful
> extensions on top of their hosting plans. There is no blunder
> here, it's all very deliberate for the purpose of making money.
> There's no point on ranting about that.
>

I'm well aware that it's deliberate, but it's still anti-competetive, 
asinine and anachronistic. And it's not as if the whole hosting thing isn't 
worth anything. That is, after all, what they *do*.

People have this bizarre idea that the pursuit of $$$ automatically excuses 
anything and everything. "WTF, that's terrible!" "No, it's ok: They're 
making $$$ off of it!" "Oh, ok then! If they're making $$$!"

This is why OSS software will always be better (on average) than commercial: 
No managers to fuck things up.