This doesn’t surprise me at all… Just like bots in games. Selling a service that benefits another. Its shady, but definitely believable.
Also, what if this is an actual viable way to “market” for an open source project?
I am not a programmer. But I have been using github as an end user for years, downloading programs I like and whatnot. Today I realized there are stars on github. Literally never even noticed.
The stars are more important when you’re a developer. It indicates interest in the project, and when it’s a library you might want to use that translates into how well maintained it might be and what level of official and unofficial support you might get from it.
Other key things to look at are how often are they doing releases and committing changes, how long bugs are left open, if pull requests sit there forever without being merged in etc.
Yeah, this is a pretty good gauge of what an honest star rating should represent.
On the Caveat Emptor (“Let the buyer beware”) side of things, I look at other metrics well before I rely on stars.
How many contributors does it have? How many active forks? How many pull requests? How many issues are open and how many get solved and how often and how lively are the discussions? When was the last merge? How active is the maintainer?
Stars might as well be facebook likes imo: when used as intended, they didn’t say much more than “this is what the majority of people like” (surprise, I’m on lemmy bc I have other priorities than what’s popular), now they mean nothing at all.
Programming never needed these sorts of social media features in the first place. Do you part by getting your projects off of Microsoft’s social media platform used to try to sell you Copilot AI & take a cut of your donations to projects with Sponsors.
For reference, there is codeberg.org, operated by a German nonprofit and based on the open source Forgejo, among other open alternatives.
I like hub.darcs.net & smeder.ee myself. Git is overrated.
Git is overrated.
That’s interesting to read; I wasn’t even aware of the existence of Darcs — or any other alternative to git supposedly worth considering, for that matter. Would you elaborate on it?
Pijul is also worth looking at.
Fundamentally anything with a snapshot-based model is reliant on patch order mattering. As such you always end up with some centralized server. Pijul & Darcs are based on Patch Theory that says if Patch B is applied before or after Patch A assuming there is no conflict or dependence, it should not matter in a communicative way—that is to say the 1 + 2 ≡ 2 + 1. You can avoid a series of conflicts & better support a distibuted/decentralized development model if the order doesn’t matter.
Federated repo hosting website when?
Radicle can do it presently but a lot folks dismissed them since they worked on cryptocurrency stuff independently. Weird thing to be hung up on considering they were separate endeavors, but folks are fickle.
Also, what if this is an actual viable way to “market” for an open-source project?
I am fortunate enough to not market my stuff:
If somebody finds and can make use of it. Great.
In the other case who cares? Didn’t hurt or cost me anything to publish it.
Fake GitHub stares have other implications: Typosquatting is a real issue and fake stars make it more convincing that it is the genuine project.
Shocking, a site full of diy programmers and hackers are trying to hack the system. Maybe even just for fun.
Why would it be? Software is good based on it’s use and recommendations from real folk, not *s. Many project not on github
based on its* use
Yes. You corrected a dyslexic. Well done.
Yeah, I’d argue that the project can be good and not widely used. Do you think that there are projects with real use case and are great open source software and not widely used because its buried under the *s?
It could be a relatively inexpensive way for niche marketing. Especially if the developer has a payment option with the software. Probably a decent way to get the software out in the open for profitability, no?
That is more down to poor marketing. Here on Lemmy or reddit there are big open source communities where you can extol the values of it.
Just trying to play a little devils advocate. Not saying that’s ethical to do it, but if morals/ethics don’t play a part in the decision, it could prove useful. Besides, I’d imagine that its already being extorted pretty heavily if there’s that much competition for sellers, hah.
From a pragmatic standpoint, yeah it would accomplish that goal. However, that discounts the intended purpose of the stars, which is to represent an individuals attribution of personal value and trust. They lose significance and become misleading if you can buy them, which holds true even for good software. When we see a github star is should represent someone who has used the software, finds value in it or who respects and trusts the project.
shouldn’t this sort of thing destroy your algorithm ranking
