Github is to git as Sourceforge is (used to be) to subversion, but with a better UI.
And yes, there have been concerns raised about what would happen if Github took a turn like Sourceforge, which usually get brought up when information about new shady practices at Sourceforge come up (or they get rehashed here).
Makes sense. I'm quite interested in seeing where it goes over time. I think it will depend a lot on the nature of the company. If it's VC-funded & aiming for acquisition, then there's a decent chance of Sourceforge history repeating. Otherwise, it might stick around as a beneficial ecosystem. Time will tell.
If you understand the difference between the two, you'd realize your comment makes no sense. The fact that github went down due to a power failure has nothing to do with git as a solution.
The fact that everyone uses git more or less the same as svn is the problem. Git is decentralized, but because so many people rely on github most don't ever use the decentralized aspect to it.
If you understood my comment, you'd know I don't understand the differences between the two that much since I haven't studied them yet. Been clear in a few comments on that. The reason I associate them here is that most projects I see don't just use Git: they use Github, too. So, I briefly wonder and get feedback about how inherent Github-style downtime was or if it was configuration/deployment issues.
Several commenters helpfully described how Git can easily prevent stuff like this and that project-level stuff is why this is a liability. That's good to know as it's already a selling point to management types for a solution like it. Can just ensure the problem doesn't show up in a local deployment by a wiser configuration.
And yes, there have been concerns raised about what would happen if Github took a turn like Sourceforge, which usually get brought up when information about new shady practices at Sourceforge come up (or they get rehashed here).