linking my new computer to github so i can work on my repos

[Beefmaster]

hey,

 

i have been on github for a while and am starting to create my own repos. I just set up a new computer that i will be working on. this computer is running linux mint 17 and i am preety pumped to get working on my repos.

 

 My mac(i was tricked okay) was the computer i did most of my stuff on and now i have this computer i would like to bring my work over to this computer.

 

How would i go about doing this, i have set up my github with my username and email and stuff so thats ready to go and now am trying to figuer out how to download the repos so i can work on them on this computer.

 

 

does any one know how to do this and if so how?

 

 

thanks beefmaster!!!!

[ImBleu]

Only I would read it as "licking my new computer......"

[Deprecated]

checkout from your repo through your ide or install git and do it through cli

[Avratz]

Just clone it

 

http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Basics-Getting-a-Git-Repository

[Redliub]

Do you have the git cli tools installed? Mint probably installs them by default actually...

 

There's no shame in using Macs. Most serious Unix hackers went Mac a while ago. If you want the GitHub desktop interface obviously you need OS X or Windows. I suggest you either learn git from the command line or switch back to a method of operation that you understand how to use.

[Method]

 

 

 My mac(i was tricked okay) was the computer i did most of my stuff on and now i have this computer i would like to bring my work over to this computer.

 

There's no shame in using Macs. Most serious Unix hackers went Mac a while ago. 

 

The entire development team at my work is on macbook pros. I think I'm the only one still on windows. I have no plans of switching unless they buy me a brand new macbook lol.

[Redliub]

The entire development team at my work is on macbook pros. I think I'm the only one still on windows. I have no plans of switching unless they buy me a brand new macbook lol.

Typical. All hardcore devs that don't work for MS run Linux if they're politically opposed to OS X or OS X if they're not.

 

I should know, I happen to be every hardcore dev.

[Deprecated]

Do you have the git cli tools installed? Mint probably installs them by default actually...

 

There's no shame in using Macs. Most serious Unix hackers went Mac a while ago. If you want the GitHub desktop interface obviously you need OS X or Windows. I suggest you either learn git from the command line or switch back to a method of operation that you understand how to use.

a lot of unix users use many different flavors of unix actually. Macs dont really offer any advantage in using their operating system for unix hackers. Dont get me wrong, it's not a bad os, it just isnt that much better, if any, to other unix distros. For a Unix user it mostly will come down preference. Also there is several GIT GUI interfaces for linux ( http://git-scm.com/downloads/guis )

[rockking1379]

"git clone https://github.com/<username>/<project name>/<project name>.git" when your done, "git add *" (the * is optional, it just adds ALL files that changed, may add file type if needed, basically just add files to the upcoming commit). "git commit" this will pull up a editor, first line is your short summary, second and beyond is the actual notes. "git push" this will prompt you to login, enter username and password. note, this is assuming you wanna use the CLI version of git. dont ask me about using GUI for git, only place i do that is on windows desktop with github client

[Redliub]

a lot of unix users use many different flavors of unix actually. Macs dont really offer any advantage in using their operating system for unix hackers. Dont get me wrong, it's not a bad os, it just isnt that much better, if any, to other unix distros. For a Unix user it mostly will come down preference. Also there is several GIT GUI interfaces for linux ( http://git-scm.com/downloads/guis )

It's far better than anything Linux has to offer in a number of ways. The UI is so much better it's not even a comparison. Linux UX sucks so bad that not even pros can figure it out. This is well documented.

 

Basically the only serious people using Linux right now are cheapskates/can't afford Macs or politically opposed to anything that doesn't fit pass Richard Stallman's extremely tight sphincter.

[rockking1379]

It's far better than anything Linux has to offer in a number of ways. The UI is so much better it's not even a comparison. Linux UX sucks so bad that not even pros can figure it out. This is well documented.

Basically the only serious people using Linux right now are cheapskates/can't afford Macs or politically opposed to anything that doesn't fit pass Richard Stallman's extremely tight sphincter.

You make it out like someone using something they can actually afford is a bad thing. I use linux and windows. And would like a Mac but only so I can mess with iOS development. Outside of that it'd be useless to me. As for linux UI being so bad, you gotta find a better one. Gnome, ya it sucks ass. But cinnamon from the mint team isn't bad. Unity can just die for all I care. Whatever elementary os calls their UI is nice as well.

[Deprecated]

It's far better than anything Linux has to offer in a number of ways. The UI is so much better it's not even a comparison. Linux UX sucks so bad that not even pros can figure it out. This is well documented.

 

Basically the only serious people using Linux right now are cheapskates/can't afford Macs or politically opposed to anything that doesn't fit pass Richard Stallman's extremely tight sphincter.

What kind of Unix Hacker needs a UI?

[Darko_Nerivar]

You make it out like someone using something they can actually afford is a bad thing. I use linux and windows. And would like a Mac but only so I can mess with iOS development. Outside of that it'd be useless to me. As for linux UI being so bad, you gotta find a better one. Gnome, ya it sucks ass. But cinnamon from the mint team isn't bad. Unity can just die for all I care. Whatever elementary os calls their UI is nice as well.

Elementary uses Gnome3 fork.

And you can make pretty much an eyecandy out of Gnome2

 

It's far better than anything Linux has to offer in a number of ways. The UI is so much better it's not even a comparison. Linux UX sucks so bad that not even pros can figure it out. This is well documented.

 

Basically the only serious people using Linux right now are cheapskates/can't afford Macs or politically opposed to anything that doesn't fit pass Richard Stallman's extremely tight sphincter.

Only serious people... cheapskates.... WHAT?

I personally know bunch of dudes, that own top MBPs with Arch on them alongside OSX.

And about that "UX" suxx... another WHAT.

First of all - point out what _exact_ DE you mean. Unity? Pffft.

Secondly - you have tons of DEs you like: from minimalistic XMonad and Awesome to fatso-eyecandy KDE.

 

What kind of Unix Hacker needs a UI?

Shhh. A don't think he can understand...

 

PS Vim > Emacs    *awaiting the War*

 

 

Back on topic.

generate and add keys, then - git clone *yourRepo*

[rockking1379]

PS Vim > Emacs *awaiting the War*

TBH never used emacs. If at cli I use vi, if at DE I use sublime

[kingdorian]

PS Vim > Emacs    *awaiting the War*

 

No Nano>Vim>Emacs ^^

[Deprecated]

No Nano>Vim>Emacs ^^

Vim is to good

Vim > Emacs

[kingdorian]

Vim is to good

Vim > Emacs

Nope Nano = the best , but I still don't get the point of this editor war , even my computerorganization professor was flaming/talking about it lol

[Redliub]

What kind of Unix Hacker needs a UI?

Those that are less pretentious than you. If you think you're less productive with a GUI then you've never used a good one...oh wait.

 

Only serious people... cheapskates.... WHAT?

I personally know bunch of dudes, that own top MBPs with Arch on them alongside OSX.

And about that "UX" suxx... another WHAT.

First of all - point out what _exact_ DE you mean. Unity? Pffft.

Secondly - you have tons of DEs you like: from minimalistic XMonad and Awesome to fatso-eyecandy KDE.

 

Shhh. A don't think he can understand...

 

PS Vim > Emacs    *awaiting the War*

No vim definitely beats emacs. I prefer pure vi though.

 

Notice that Arch is going for a different experience though. It's not for people who want a GUI at all and yet your dudes still use OS X.

 

Again, you don't understand what UX is if you're going to suggest xmonad and KDE Plasma (KDE is a group, not a product) are superior to Aqua. Plasma is a crude ripoff of Windows's UI and xmonad is a hardcore tiling WM. It doesn't offer a GUI. 

[Darko_Nerivar]

Notice that Arch is going for a different experience though. It's not for people who want a GUI at all and yet your dudes still use OS X.

 

Again, you don't understand what UX is if you're going to suggest xmonad and KDE Plasma (KDE is a group, not a product) are superior to Aqua. Plasma is a crude ripoff of Windows's UI and xmonad is a hardcore tiling WM. It doesn't offer a GUI. 

 

Yeah... they use OSX GUI to use Swift compiler and testing multiplatform compatibility through console. Hmmm. Is it just me or that just sounds ridiculous?

 

About that "you don't understand"... UX stands for _user_experience_ which includes the practical, experiential, affective, meaningful and valuable aspects of human-computer interaction. Therefore - even Midnight/Norton Commander gets in this category. Hell, even the Lynx browser gets in there. Lots of people just don't graphics interface. Mkay?

 

About that "how you should/shouldn't say" - the common way to name Plasma/Shmazma is "KDE desktop environment". Who gives a crap how it was registered? You are just clinging to the words.

 

And last, but not least... "Plasma is a crude ripoff of Windows' UI". *Sigh*. A bit of history. The first company that introduced "window" interface was Microsoft in their - you won't believe - Windows 1.0 interface for MSDOS! So even your beloved OSXs' interface is "a crude ripoff".

 

No vim definitely beats emacs. I prefer pure vi though.

 

No. It doesn't. They have different ideology.

In addition - those flame wars are just for fun, not to see whose balls are bigger.

 

Those that are less pretentious than you. If you think you're less productive with a GUI then you've never used a good one...oh wait.

 

Firstly, that is ad personam. 

Secondly, never heard of Unix Hackers?

 

 

Okay, I'm done here. I don't think that further reasoning will make any difference.

[Deprecated]

Those that are less pretentious than you. If you think you're less productive with a GUI then you've never used a good one...oh wait.

 

No vim definitely beats emacs. I prefer pure vi though.

 

Notice that Arch is going for a different experience though. It's not for people who want a GUI at all and yet your dudes still use OS X.

 

Again, you don't understand what UX is if you're going to suggest xmonad and KDE Plasma (KDE is a group, not a product) are superior to Aqua. Plasma is a crude ripoff of Windows's UI and xmonad is a hardcore tiling WM. It doesn't offer a GUI.

GUI's definitely slow down users who know what they want to happen and how to do it. No GUI is going to offer the same power as a good CLI shell

[rockking1379]

GUI's definitely slow down users who know what they want to happen and how to do it. No GUI is going to offer the same power as a good CLI shell

not to mention some programs (many actually) who have both a CLI and GUI version are far more configurable in CLI. its easier to add logic for various startup params but writing logic for handling menus and classifying types of settings just gets messy and well programmers are lazy so do things the lazy way and no gui for those options.

[Redliub]

Yeah... they use OSX GUI to use Swift compiler and testing multiplatform compatibility through console. Hmmm. Is it just me or that just sounds ridiculous?

 

About that "you don't understand"... UX stands for _user_experience_ which includes the practical, experiential, affective, meaningful and valuable aspects of human-computer interaction. Therefore - even Midnight/Norton Commander gets in this category. Hell, even the Lynx browser gets in there. Lots of people just don't graphics interface. Mkay?

 

About that "how you should/shouldn't say" - the common way to name Plasma/Shmazma is "KDE desktop environment". Who gives a crap how it was registered? You are just clinging to the words.

 

And last, but not least... "Plasma is a crude ripoff of Windows' UI". *Sigh*. A bit of history. The first company that introduced "window" interface was Microsoft in their - you won't believe - Windows 1.0 interface for MSDOS! So even your beloved OSXs' interface is "a crude ripoff".

 

 

No. It doesn't. They have different ideology.

In addition - those flame wars are just for fun, not to see whose balls are bigger.

 

 

Firstly, that is ad personam. 

Secondly, never heard of Unix Hackers?

You're grossly oversimplifying, misinterpreting, and generally shitting on several points.

 

I understand what UX is. Linux has never been at the top of the UX food chain. The moment you realize this we can stop arguing over it but until then nope.

 

Torvalds himself wrote an epic rant about how awful GNOME 3 had gotten, so he switched to Xfce. Possibly the largest proponent of Linux on the desktop can even stand to use one of the "advanced" GUI experiences on it.

 

Microsoft did not introduce the window interface. I suggest you pull your head out of your ass and look around. It's actually breezy out here too, it might cool your temper a bit.

 

Apple introduced the GUI with the Apple Lisa in 1983. They had the inspiration for the windowed GUI system in a licensed visit to Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center a few years prior.

 

Microsoft did not introduce Windows as an add-on for MS-DOS until 1985. Nice try at revisionism but you have failed.

 

And no, that's not what I meant at all. I urge you to find a Linux desktop environment (not a window manager, I'm sure you know the difference) that doesn't make an extremely poor attempt at either ripping off Aqua or Aero. Most Linux GUIs have a start menu of sorts that is very similar functionally speaking to the start menu in Windows XP. Those that don't use a dock and a menu bar, like OS X. Unity is the closest thing to a truly unified UX that Linux on the desktop has to offer (surprise surprise) but you people reject it because it's too easy to use.

 

The whole command line usage thing is a sort of masochistic pride for power users. There's no pride in pretending like it's 1970. The most productive developers use a combination of the CLI and the GUI.

 

GUI's definitely slow down users who know what they want to happen and how to do it. No GUI is going to offer the same power as a good CLI shell

Keep saying that. Being proficient in both is far more efficient.

[Darko_Nerivar]

GUI's definitely slow down users who know what they want to happen and how to do it. No GUI is going to offer the same power as a good CLI shell

 

 

not to mention some programs (many actually) who have both a CLI and GUI version are far more configurable in CLI. its easier to add logic for various startup params but writing logic for handling menus and classifying types of settings just gets messy and well programmers are lazy so do things the lazy way and no gui for those options.

 

I don't think that fanboys would understand even if we quote research, they are just trapped in puny a puny little world of their complexes and don't want to get out of the box >_<

They are just going to blah-this and blah-that like those katana fapers ("katana is a best sword in the world, it can cut a tank in two halves" - those people).

 

*sigh* Talked to one of researchers of HCI (human-computer interface, not hydrogen chloride ) from Inria yesterday... I quote: "Modern GUI are counterproductive for the most of the users. Drop-down menus and little dialogs are flawed. And all of the workflow is constructed over needs of secretaries of 80s(documents, folders, other crap)."

 

Nah, hamsters just like fancy looking shit. Don't need to waste fingers on 'em.