I don’t know what that means, but your comment is a little confusing.
Github is an open source project where you can share files and bugs, like most other web sites. The issue was that Github made a change to their code that turned a trivial exploit into one that could be used to compromise users. It wasn’t malicious, but the change didn’t catch the mistake and it was easy for hackers to exploit.
GitHub has been criticized for making changes to the Github codebase that could allow users to compromise users in bad ways since the beginning of 2016. I would argue that they need to make changes to the codebase that do not allow users to do this kind of thing, but that’s a separate issue.
In the end, it was a small change that just had some users not being able to use their repositories for work. Theyve gotten a lot of attention for the change, which is a good thing because it’s a small change that can have a big impact. For instance, it just took them a couple of hours to go back through the code and make sure it was fine. This is what we’re doing with the GitHub codebase as a whole.
GitHub is a service that allows individuals and organizations to share code on the internet. In order to be able to work on their code, many developers are required to sign in with their GitHub username and password. When they do this however, they are not given access to any of the repositories they do not have access to. And as a result, this makes it difficult for people with malicious code to sneak past security measures.
This is why I often ask developers to leave github. I’ll leave it to others to determine if it was worth the effort, but GitHub is a large, well-known repository with a large community. I imagine that most developers are uncomfortable leaving their repositories exposed like that, which is why we’ve made it easy for them to leave. We are really working on making that a bit easier, so if you want to leave github, we’d love to know what you think.
This is a pretty solid argument, but I think it’s a terrible idea to leave GitHub because it’s a private repository with a large community.
The argument is similar to the one made by those who say that the idea of a private repository is an example of centralized control, but the reality is that it’s not. That’s a bit like saying that the idea of a private company is an example of centralized control because it’s controlled by someone with a monopoly.
To me, having a private repository and not allowing GitHub to fork it is an example of centralized control. Of course, I also agree that the world of GitHub is a big, beautiful, open world, but so is the world of the private company.