• jnj@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    Is that post really anti us and pro china though? To me it looks like anti pro us, and anti anti china.

    I had already formed conclusions after reading through one of the founder’s comment histories (which I’d encourage), so my reading of it may have been biased. Either way it’s clear that the motivation driving them is, or at least was, largely political in nature.

    Also, how do you see the founders controlling the project more? Especially at the “much deeper level”?

    They own the github repo, they control what code gets committed, they control whether the project lives or dies really. They have the power to lose interest or decide to abandon the project, at which point the best hope the community has is that others pick it up. It’s not normally something I worry too much about with open source projects but again, strong geopolitical associations makes it feel precarious to me – if they don’t like where things are going, maybe they’d feel motivated to actively shut it down and discourage any peaceful transition of (code) ownership. Obviously this is all conjecture.

    I’m a New Zealander living in The Netherlands, whether you choose to believe that or not.

    I’m not sure why you think I’d have trouble believing that!

    • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Couldn’t someone just fork it and update current servers with that fork and still keep all of the data though? It should still just work the same but just not be from a codebase controlled by the founders

      • carbon_based@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I’d think if they would resist a “global citizen” approach in favour of the now de-facto “hegemonic nations” approach, that would be a good reason for offering such a fork. … It could quickly supersede the “old Lemmy” when people start to realise that the new system allows migration and resilience against domain-takedowns. :-)
        @CowsLookLikeMaps@sh.itjust.works

      • Cows Look Like Maps@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        That’s right. It’s a legitimate solution if the lead dev drives it into the ground. I don’t think lack of developers to fork or maintain it would be an issue. The only barrier I see is adoption of yet another platform. So in my mind, there’s always an option to just separate if Lemmy turns into one big tankie brigade. But forking is still a PITA and not ideal.

        • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          I don’t think using a fork would separate it into another platform. It would still be Lemmy. They would only need to separate of their code bases change so drastically between the two that going to other instances from the forked one starts breaking things. And even then workarounds could then be put in the former version so everything still plays nice.