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
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 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
        2 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
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 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.