So, not only did Github tank the repo and its forks, but it couldn’t be bothered to ask nixxquality (the person behind the offensive code comments) to make the changes first before moving on to more drastic tactics. This was ultra-lazy because the takedown came first and the notification second. And in the laziest way - by deferring to its terms of service. But Github became its own heckler’s veto. This is a problem because it affects more than the person who childishly decided to use the word “retard” in his/her code comments - comments, it must be noted, that would probably be read by others who would be unoffended by this usage. Github had already deleted the original repo, and suddenly all forks from this repo were affected, ie also gone from public view and use on Github. It’s insulting and terrible and generally Not Acceptable Usage, but it’s still deployed in code instructions for idiots while idiot-proofing software. It’s also used in a pejorative sense far more frequently. The word “retard” has its legitimate uses, as noted above. Why? Github wants to remove the word “retard” from code. A change where the word “Retard” – “delay or hold back in terms of progress or development”- was removed and exchanged for the word “Git” – “an unpleasant or contemptible person”. On top of this, would it kill these services that suddenly decide to crack down on one person to at least be consistent in their actions? (h/t Andre)Ĭurrently, there’s an all out gif-and-snark-war going on in this trainwreck of a thread over at Github, below a small change made in the fork of a repo. Open-source generally conjures visions of freedom and a more “hands-off” approach. However, things change a bit when you’re considered to be a central repository of open-source projects, like Github is. There’s nothing censorious about a private company deciding what it does and doesn’t want littering its platform.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |