this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
1552 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
59590 readers
5441 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What a bunch of maroons. 99.9% chance someone else mirrored that git repo.
EDIT: And this is yet another reason everyone, everywhere, should immediately mirror any git repo for a project they are even remotely interested in.
github giveth, and github can (and does) taketh away. Say NO to centralized source management platforms -- exactly the antithesis of what git was designed for in the first place!
True, maybe, but in this case entirely pointless. If Unity didn't host their repo on git, they would've hosted it on their own solution. They would've been able to delete the repo just the same. Furthermore, if they hosted the solution on their own, it would've made it harder for others to mirror the repo. At least harder as git makes it.
Fair enough... archive.is and other solutions then to capture their pages before/after changes.
To be fair, this is a feature not a bug. The original creator is the one who taketh away.
True, generally. Unless DMCA notices force github to taketh away for them... :) youtube-dl and others found out.
Say no to centralized platforms altogether. I don’t want to be that person, but things like these are exactly why open-source is (and should be) superior. It’s unfortunate that OSS has had so little traction in the end-user side of things
What's the point of having an outdated copy of the ToS? Unity did this just so that it's not so easy for everyone to see future changes.
Users are bound by the version of the terms they agree with when they start using the product. There may be a term that says ongoing usage when the terms change constitutes acceptance of a change.
Unity are trying to say they can make the change retroactively, but the 2022 (and prior) terms apparently included a clause saying that if future changes were detrimental to the user they could stay on old versions of the software and remain bound by the old terms. That's one angle Devs could use to tell them to get fucked There may be others.
Ooooh, I understand now! That's fucked up, and that's so dumb of them.
My question is how much support does Unity provide or need to provide to the old versions, or I guess any version. Will they still be usable a few years down the road?
I mean you're not wrong but also that's already done for us by the Wayback Machine.
But yeah this is major ignorant corporate Streisand-effecting. Basically openly admitting they don't care about the ethics of their company.
Mirror a git repo? Do you understand how git works? You clone the repo, and it's effectively mirrored already, especially for something that doesn't change much.
If you want the commits updated, then put
git pullin a daily cronjob. Boom! Mirror.True, every git pull is a 'mirror'. Bad phrasing on my part. I was thinking more of when I set up my local gogs instance to mirror an outside/upstream git (such as from github), which really is just their term for pulling again automatically every time upstream changes.