It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.

  • Sinthesis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    No shit? Let me guess; you’re still using git like Linus intended it to be, decentralized, by emailing each other tar.gz’s

    • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      No. I’m just not willing to attribute a COMPANY as the sole owner/stakeholder in a protocol that honestly has very little to do with them.

      Just because Github does something, doesn’t mean that they represent git.

      • Sinthesis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I just used the most popular/known example. Personally I haven’t liked GitHub since Micro$oft bought them. I’m ol’ school, 25 years in the biz so M$ really really leaves a bad aftertaste in my mouth.

        I’ll answer your other question in the other thread.