• Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    269
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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!

    • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      78
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Say NO to centralized source management platforms

      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.

    • sfgifz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      10 months ago

      github giveth, and github can (and does)

      To be fair, this is a feature not a bug. The original creator is the one who taketh away.

      • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        True, generally. Unless DMCA notices force github to taketh away for them… :) youtube-dl and others found out.

    • Qvest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      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

      • AdmiralShat@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        That’s changing, imo. For years, closed source software built by companies was just superior in I’d say 80% of cases (Image editing, DAWs, 3D graphics (remember, blender may be getting up their in age, but it only recently hit parity with other major softwares)

        I feel like now I’m using more open source software than not, not out of a personal belief, but because it’s actually better now than some of the closed source alternatives (price is not an issue with me, I’m gonna pirate whatever I want to use anyway)

        I feel like it’s hitting a wider audience, too, nowadays.

    • El Barto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      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.

      • Raxiel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          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?

    • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

    • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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 pull in a daily cronjob. Boom! Mirror.

      • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.