Sure, I know a lot of projects have been on GH since before MS bought it, but they’ve owned it for quite a while now, so we really should be seeing better migration out by now, no?
Codeberg is nonprofit which seems more in the spirit of the Linux ecosystem overall. GH is for-profit…
EDIT: All right, all right, I’ve gotten schooled. Thank you, O wise ones; I didn’t realize how much Microsoft literally depends on Linux, among other things. I will proceed to shut up.
Why aren’t all the reddit users over here yet? Consolidation and ease of use. Big number make brain happy.
Lazyness? Its why Amazon is such a success. Too difficult to do online search. Amazon is convinient.
You are mistaken, they all are, what’s left is bots talking between them
Ha, if only that were the truth. I keep preaching over there and telling people to check out /r/RedditAlternatives, at least, so I like to think that I’ve moved at least one person over, which makes it all worthwhile.
GitHub has been around for nearly 2 decades and was largely considered a mostly good thing until maybe the past couple of years. Also important to add that Microsoft seems to mostly have left it alone for the first couple of years (possibly with the exception of Atom, which it left very alone)
In addition to people just generally being slow to change, changing can take quite a bit of effort for some projects for varying reasons. Many of those same projects struggle to keep up with the maintenance workload, so they’re not going to jump at the chance to add more work to their plates.
Finally, some people just don’t care. For instance, the MIT license being popular is pretty hard evidence that FOSS doesn’t necessarily mean anti-corporate, and for many users GitHub still more or less does what it says on the tin.
Though I will say if the service disruptions and ad-injection bullshit continue you’ll only see GitHub competitors grow. GitLab seems to be going after their enterprise customers with some success.
I must’ve missed this meme if this is some sort of repeat.
For some people, they don’t actually care about the politics of FOSS; they want a portfolio for employers.
It’s disappointing yet unsurprising to read the recurring answers, namely :
- cost
- incumbency
precisely because it’s absolutely avoidable and a well known strategy. It’s so well known that it’s precisely why Micro$lop bought Github in the first place. People are there and the free tiers is enough to get the long tail.
Meanwhile since that strategy happened people who consider smart enough should know the genuine cost behind this : it’s a TRAP. Plain and simple, you get there and you get STUCK there.
So… yes it takes some sweat and even some money to leave the trap … but if you care about freedom, as most free software or open-source developers might, then it’s aligned with your value.
Free CI/CD
Open Source projects get lots of free features for being on GitHub. Nobody else is beating that offering at current.
What are those free features? Why doesn’t Codeberg have it?
Because running servers costs money. The project I work on gets donations towards it’s CI costs and it’s not insignificant.
Free github actions
A friend of mine sees using GitHub as microslop paying reparations to open source.
Right, like how Micro$lop :
- blocked repository search without login (while it worked before the acquisition)
- pushed in the most traditional Micro$lop fashion for its own product, e.g. Copilot, with in product ads
- use repositories as ways to feed its own set of products, e.g. Azure for OpenAI, in order to push for code generation while ignoring licenses
and all the other things (please feel free to make this list more comprehensive) as “reparations”?
It’s the same old "Embrace, extend, and extinguish " (EEE) scheme they’ve been (sadly successfully) running for decades now.
Amuy new projects are codeberg. But github has a default 10gb repo space. Imagine everyone suddenly wants that on codeberg, the cost alone would force them to shut down or have other forms of income than donations.
I didn’t know the repo space was that different. That does play a factor in all this…
You seem to think that the idea is that linux and most FOSS projects are some carebear nonprofit charity organization. You are wrong.
In most cases the idea is that open source work is there because it is easier to share technological progress if multiple companies work at it. And because of this it is just better than the alternative. The linux kernel is worked on by multiple large corporations that are in the business of making money using servers. If these servers run better then they make more money. To make them run better for them they need to implement their features and because of the licence and the ecosystem they need to publish these modifications back to the upstream.
All this works so good because a lot of companies make a lot of money with it.
Github will be used as long as it does not interfere with the workflow or with the legal aspects, nobody cares about the spirit nearly as much as you think
Fair, but what about the Copilot-pockmarking? And they’re always one step away from a paywall… Why wait until it gets that bad versus at least duplicating elsewhere now?
Worth noting that the Linux source is updated and collaborated with via email, not GitHub. The Linux repo on GitHub is a read-only mirror.
All these projects for sure are cloned on multiple backups, if something happens and github is no longer viable it is a minimal effort to clone the source code and bug tracking and move it somewhere else. Serious projects will have contingenties in place for this, lesser projects will do what the big guys do
Plenty of companies are quite happy to pay for github licenses
Arguably the biggest contributor to the Linux ecosystem is Red Hat, a for-profit company that offers its technologies to the Israeli military among other things. The biggest contributor to the Linux kernel is Red Hat, while the second biggest is Meta. The Linux ecosystem is not inherently nonprofit!
This is also a reason why some are against RedHat distributions (eg Fedora) or products (systemd, pulse audio). If you don’t like to support the company and have an alternative, take the alternative.
Why do you make the argument that Red Hat is the biggest contributor?Searching Linux contributor breakdown by organization puts them tied for 3rd at ~7%.https://commandlinux.com/statistics/linux-kernel-contributors-lines-of-code-statistics/
Don’t get me wrong. Intel leading the corporate contributions is worse. lolAll-time contributions are led by Red Hat at 15%. Many top organizational contributors guilty of profiting from the genocidal industrial complex. Maybe TempleOS was the true alternative.
Pardon, I remembered it so from a graph I saw a few months ago. Perhaps I misremembered, or perhaps things changed since then
You were right. Red Hat leads all time.
All the major organizational contributors are guilty of profiting from genocide. TempleOS might be the one true alternative.
Oh… shoot… TIL, thanks!
Like many other social media sites it’s partially network effects.
It’s probably majority network effects. If you compare Instagram to 5, 10 years ago on the dot, you see an atrocious drop off on quality and usability. The change was so insidious, majority of people didn’t notice or care all that much. And yet, Instagram is still one of the largest platforms in the US, despite how objectively horrendous it is to users.
Yeah, this is why I doubled this post on Reddit as well… though I keep encouraging people to check out Lemmy!
It was independent (not under Microsoft) until late 2018, and moving is hard. Even after MS bought it, they tried to keep it independent. It’s really only been the last few years where it’s gone downhill.
It’s also kinda the defacto standard for git hosting due to being a solid early player in the space. I assume that view will change as Codeberg and other rivals get more ingrained in the open source stack.
Serious answer: technical inertia and legacy reasons and most people don’t want to bother migrating established projects.
They all want to make America great again.