[saagarjha]

> Who's to say?

And then you go on to say it. I'm glad that SourceHut exists, and I like many of its principles, and it's probably better designed too, but walking into a thread where someone is having an outage and then claiming that you'd do much better is in poor taste no matter how good you are or how many of your services work offline.

[ddevault]

I responded directly to someone who said they were considering alternatives, and wouldn't've otherwise.

[saagarjha]

Right, and I think it is great to bring up how your service can handle outages better than GitHub would due to it being decentralized. The part I have issue with is saying that you'd do better than GitHub about keeping your site up, pointing to the issue that they are in the middle of resolving–that just seems like kicking them while they're down, especially since you haven't actually shown that you can do better. (Yes, you have good uptime in the past, but I don't see what's stopping the power going out to some of your servers, or you pushing a bug into production, or any number of other things that shouldn't go wrong but often do, especially as the number of users increases.)

[ddevault]

>what's stopping the power going out to some of your servers

Redundant power supplies

>pushing a bug into production

Nothing, but again, SourceHut is demonstrably better in this regard: because it's distributed, a bug in production would only affect a small subset of our system, and the system knows how to repair itself once the bug is fixed.

And I don't think I need to apologise for kicking Golaith while he's down. Someone said they want alternatives, so I pitched mine with specific details of how it's better in this situation, and that doesn't seem wrong to me. I would invite my competitors to do the same to me. We should be fostering a culture of reliability and good engineering - and if I didn't hold my competitors accountable, who will? "Here's an alternative" has more teeth than "I wish this was better."