Also if everybody moved to Tangled, I would have to somehow interact with it, wouldn't I? I dislike the social network aspect of GitHub, but it doesn't mean I don't need GitHub.

I didn't have to change it because the hardware didn't work, I had to change it because my apps (nothing crazy, just the weather and the maps app) were so laggy that they were unusable.

Not mentioning the fact that it was therefore running an old version of Android, with the security implications coming with that.

Going to Fairphone, I thought it was an "alternative" phone and that it would get support from alternative OSes (and I was running /e/OS), but what I had not realised at the time is that those will not magically compensate for the software updates. The Stock Android updates were years ahead of the /e/OS ones for my phone, for instance.

I moved to GrapheneOS after that, because I get the security and updates I want.

The email workflow has features that GitHub doesn't have. Most people do without them and don't really feel a need to learn about them, and that's fine. But would Linux be better off with GitHub? Not sure.

One thing with GitHub for open source projects is that the CI is free (and included macOS runners). The other is that many people have a GitHub account and would refuse to contribute to a project on another forge if it means that they must create a new account.

The federated design of Tangled solves the latter problem, so there's that.

And I am using alternatives to GitHub like SourceHut and Codeberg (and I will try Tangled).

I was just saying that federated systems don't necessarily federate well with each other.

Email is federated, and XMPP is federated, but it's not exactly nice to communicate on XMPP via email. Or between Matrix and XMPP, etc.

But of course I would be happier if Tangled (or something else federated) was the default instead of GitHub. Now to be pragmatic, a big advantage of GitHub is that open source projects get free CI runners (including macOS), and it's hard to compete with that.

Assuming that everybody moves to your community (in this case the atproto one). Then the ActivityPub people ask you to join their community, and so does every new community that wants to become the new standard.

That's the thing with every new social network: "You don't want to be locked into the current community that is not my community, instead you want to move to my community, which is the best! And if you do, and convince everyone around you to join as well, then you will only ever need one account for everything!".

And now, assuming that most people leave GitHub and join Tangled, it will be to the detriment of the minority that is not using Tangled. If I host a repo on SourceHut, nobody will contribute because they want GitHub. If Tangled replaces GitHub, will that change? I don't think so, people will just refuse to use anything other than Tangled.

What I find interesting is that you advocate for a federated system that everyone should use, because "it would be better for everybody", but the fact is that everybody has an email already. No need to create an account, we can send each other patches, it just works.

Why don't you promote email? Because it's not your preference.

PS: I do realise that email has a lot of issues. My point is just that I avoid the entire issue by just being open to sharing my code however it works. And I feel like patches are easier to share "universally" than pull requests. Maybe I would be in favour of a new, "richer" patch format that would make it even nicer to share over whatever system I want (email, atproto, activitypub, signal, ...)?

May I ask what networking with other instances brings? Git is decentralised, so it works with self-hosted instances, right?

How ironic.

If you think that people don't want to be in the meeting, don't invite them, or make it clearly optional.

It's a lot easier to tell someone "I don't think it's necessary for you to join, but I invited you because I didn't want you to feel excluded in case you want to be part of it" than for that someone to say "you know, you required my presence in your meeting, but I think I won't bring you anything and it's a loss of time for me".

So you say that "[Android] wastes a lot of resources by being very inefficient in software as opposed to iOS". How do you measure that? In my experience, people who have smartphone need to charge them every one or two days, and the battery gets worse over time but it usually stays usable for a few years.

If Android was "a lot less efficient", I would expect to see a difference in battery life. Do you?

> Android is largely Linux

Android (the OS) is largely NOT Linux (the OS). And if you compare Android to Linux on mobile, in terms of battery life, it is extremely different. It's pretty much what makes Linux on mobile a no-go for pretty much everyone (in good approximation).

You are allowed to not like Android or the Android codebase, but it is incorrect to say that Android is inefficient.

> You don't win the stock market or make the deadliest drone by switching to the cheap model

The question is not "can you win with the best model?", it is "can you not win without the best model?".

Really? How many times a small team has outperformed a much bigger one just because they were "doing it right"?

I have been in software companies where most software produced was bad. Not just the code, the overall design everywhere. So... bad engineers with the most expensive model, or great engineers with cheaper models?