Ha. We're on BB too. Lucky for us, there hasn't be a problem with BB service for oh, about 6 hours [1]. :)

1. https://bitbucket.statuspage.io/

One of my clients is on BB, they have frequent service issues. I need to switch them over to github.

Regardless, most dependencies are on GitHub which breaks bower install for most people. It's crazy how much infrastructure relies on this single point of failure.

Someone should make a distributed version control system.

What would that look like? Can you describe it? It's not very useful to say stuff without providing some sort of useful idea. You can't just say "someone should write some sort of stupid content tracker, and give it some random three-letter combination that is pronounceable," or whatever.

Completely agree. But whoever makes it, they should make it free and open source and designed to handle everything from small to very large projects with speed and efficiency.

Additionally, it should be easy to learn and have a tiny footprint with lightning fast performance. It should outclass SCM tools like Subversion, CVS, Perforce, and ClearCase with features like cheap local branching, convenient staging areas, and multiple workflows.

> it should be easy to learn

That would be a significant upgrade.

Can't tell if your serious or not but I suppose that would be properly implemented git.

It's sarcasm: $ man git "git - the stupid content tracker"

You mean like IPFS? [1] People are working on it.

[1] https://ipfs.io

Their source code pointing to Github is symbolic of exactly how this problem hasn't been solved yet.

I didn't say it was solved, but they are very close. IPFS is essentially a global p2p git repo, with a cryptographically controlled branch namespace.

That sounds very cool. I was just pointing out how divorced these ideas still are from the way we actually program and implement things on the web.

In an ideal world, a link to a source code repository (or a link to anything for that matter...) would never fail because there would be automatic mirrors to at least provide read-only access to it.

It sort of forces one to ask whether this is the result of fundamental mistakes within HTTP / DNS itself. It's not realistic for a web designer to put time into making external links fault tolerant by running some query to switch the routing link to an available node.

Content addressed links at least make this possible. With http you have to reach a particular server. If that server is down, the link is broken. With ipfs all you need is at least one machine on the entire network to be serving a file and the link will work and as an added bonus you can verify the hash of what you get so a mitm attack on that link is impossible.

Very interesting. Do you think ipfs could be used to mimic a server to host a static website that could be loaded by a browser?

You mean like this?

https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmNhFJjGcMPqpuYfxL62VVB9528NXqDNMFXiqN5...

:-) IPFS includes an optional http gateway to give the traditional web access to IPFS before browsers support the IPFS protocol natively.

Would this be useful?

    # pre-push (there is not post-push)
    # Update in several places
    git push bitbucket master
    git push gitlab master
    # ...

Or a local cache of dependencies

What a useless comment.

Aren't npm installs actually hosted on npm? This shouldn't affect npm installs.

That's right. Except I of course got unlucky.

    npm i semantic-ui
    npm ERR! fetch failed https://github.com/derekslife/wrench-js/tarball/156eaceed68ed31ffe2a3ecfbcb2be6ed1417fb2
    npm WARN retry will retry, error on last attempt: Error: fetch failed with status code 503

So, in this case, it looks like github isn't acting as a version control server, but rather a static server... It turns out that github isn't just a single point of failure for some application, but rather multiple points of failure for slightly different reasons...

It is possible to install npm packages that are hosted on GitHub: http://stackoverflow.com/a/17509764/889864

Oh wow, color me surprised. I edited my comment.

I changed jobs recently- previously used Github, now on BB- glad I'm not at my old job, I'm sure several people's phones are blowing up from auto-emergency fail measures.

Yeah, our time to shine has finally come!

We use Bitbucket in our ~30 member academic robotics research lab, it's wonderful because they are nice enough to supply us with as much as we need (private repos, teams, etc.) for free!

Whoo hoo! I agree!

Damn right :-)

If the internet would hire people to advertise for them, it would bring marketing to the next level. Take for example if BitBucket hired someone to go online, and compare the two: GitHub and BitBucket. Of course the comparison would have to disclose that thy work for BitBucket, but it would be a very thoughtful response.

We would get these detailed as fuck responses on why one project (BitBucket) is worth more to the developer than GitHub instead of these little jabs at why it is better. I want thoughtful responses.

If there was a duplicate response, the employee that responds to various threads online can link them to their answers.

This isn't even directed at you @ntaylor. I think it's an exploitable marketing strategy. A clear example of this is Katie from PornHub. /u/Katie_PornHub (or whatever the user name is) posts on reddit, which in tern gets more interest in PornHub. PornHub is basically using reddit for free advertising.

Basically. I want to know WHY something is better than something else, and that WHY is with as much detail as possible with a lot of thought put into it. Give me a pros and const list between the two. Anything but two good things about it.

- - -

Holy fuck, this would just add a human element to advertising. You hire humans to serve ads to people. Whenever "GitHub" is mentioned, and you have a competing better service, their only job is to advertise your service to anyone have problems with the other service.

In cases like these, it always seems to happen naturally. Humans are willingly advertising for free, when they could be paid for it.

The downfall of the internet:

  > We make up the ad network
  > It carries us far;
  > however---giants must fall.

Me.

Thinking about this more, this could be automated to some degree. You could have a bot that listens and responds when key words appear somewhere online. You could use Google's API for when it's bot finds something of interest to you "As it happens"

This would only get you so far. What if a user has a question? How will you help them out if it's a bit. The solution?

Write API's for every site that you want to use. You can either scrape every site for responses that fit your criteria, or let google do the digging for you with the "as it happens" notifications which would indicate that you have to scrape that site for the information.

If the information you get from the site is something you want to respond to, you can.

- - -

Holy fucking shit.

I just described a system that would allow for you to use all websites as inboxes for chat messages.

- - -

Refine:

With this early model, we would have one program on our machine that would understand X websites. It can parse user comments directed at us from a website (A). It can send responses back to A, and so on.

Now, users on Program X can chat with theoretically any person on any website (A, B, ...), but users of website A can only chat with other people on website A OR people using Program X.

Why doesn't everyone use program X? Because it does not exist yet.