Why Slack is inappropriate for open source communications

Re:Why Slack is inappropriate for open source communications by rsync on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @11:27PM (#14094498)

"You can still create a Digital Ocean droplet, Docker container, or VM Image - and do the same thing (upload & forget)."

Wouldn't it be easier - and free - to "upload and forget" onto github ?

If someone had a software release, why wouldn't they choose github to be the release point - even if it's just a single tarball ?

Are there costs involved in hosting binaries/tarfiles on github ?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Slack is inappropriate for open source communications by 31h on Tuesday April 11, 2017 @11:57PM (#14094638)

Can you clarify what you are driving at with these questions? First off, a lot of people prefer hosted source repositories other than github (e.g. hub.darcs.net, gitlab.com, My Own Private Server). Github naturally imposes various limitations on their "free" plans.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Slack is inappropriate for open source communications by rsync on Wednesday April 12, 2017 @12:03AM (#14094659)

I'm not getting at anything. I'm genuinely curious.

Personally, I self-host everything on my personal www homepage.

If I did not self-host everything, I assume I would put it up on github, right ?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Slack is inappropriate for open source communications by 31h on Wednesday April 12, 2017 @12:15AM (#14094706)

At the risk of prolonging a pointless line of discussion: what does github have to do with anything in this context?

[ Parent | on HN ]