Are we not worried that Minetest is depending on MS now?

[Linuxdirk]

… and thus Microsoft is heavily interested in your private repositories and non-disclosure security bug trackers.

[texmex]

Sounds like the critique of hosting the project on Github can be categorized into two groups:

1. Using Github is a risk for the project because Microsoft also owns Minecraft, thus an indirect conflict of interest.

2. Using Github is bad for any free software project as it strengthens Microsoft’s newly acquired domination over source hosting, developer workflow and repo security insight.

I think (1) sounds a little too far out of an idea to entertain seriously. I don’t think Microsoft bought Minecraft for it being a game at all, but precisely for the same reason they bought Github: the user base. Thus Minetest isn’t competition at all.

I think (2) is a very serious and a very real threat to free software. Some people gets confused by Microsoft embracing open source. They really are. Open source is the contemporary mode of production in tech. There’s nothing special about it. It’s not creating more freedom per se. Free software still has potential though, because it differs from ”open source software”, but only if it can escape from being encapsulated by the proprietary Github platform.

[MCL]

The recent version of MT (released earlier this year) compared to MC 1.8 performs way better, at least on my laptop.

Minetest 5.0.1 with render distance 150 runs at average 50 FPS, compared to Minecraft 1.3 (WHICH IS FROM 2012!) which runs at an average of 10 FPS with the "Tiny" render distance and stops responding for a few seconds every minute or so on one of my computers

[Linuxdirk]

1. Using Github is a risk for the project because Microsoft also owns Minecraft, thus an indirect conflict of interest.

This is an issue for ALL software hosted there where Microsoft has a similar product for. No matter if games or productive software. Since Microsoft owns GitHub they can access all repositories without any limitations seeing all confidential issue trackers and non-public repositories. So they know exactly and at any given time for any competitor what they have to deal with and what they’re developing outside the public.

This isn’t a “Minetest shouldn’t be there” issue. This is a fundamental issue of free and open source software.

Some people gets confused by Microsoft embracing open source. They really are.

Some people think that Microsoft actually embraces open source except for their EEE strategy.

[Wuzzy]

Note that when you try to post an security vuln in Minetest, you are sent here:

https://github.com/minetest/minetest/security/policy

This page asks the reporter to send e-mails directly to core devs. So GitHub and Microsoft are circumvented.
Indeed, it would be VERY irressponsible to let people post security vulns directly on GitHub. Or on anyone else's computer, for that matter.

It should be common knowledge that everything you post on someone else's computer can be accessed and read by whoever owns the computer, too (unless properly encrypted). They control the computer, dummy! It should be really obvious but many people just don't get it.

[Linuxdirk]

Note that when you try to post an security vuln in Minetest, you are sent here:

Have you read it? “Depending on severity, we will either create a private issue for the vulnerability and release a patch version of Minetest, or give you permission to file the issue publicly.” – So there likely will be a private issue created, either private or public.

But as said: This isn’t about Minetest. It’s about the very nature of free software that is contrary of what Microsoft wants.