[FactCore]

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think GitHub has a monopoly. Git was created to be decentralized, so every developer has a "backup" of sorts on their own machine.

If GitHub is truely hostile to you, taking your business elsewhere (or hosting it yourself) shouldn't be too much of a roadblock for people with sponsors like OP.

[jacquesm]

Git being decentralized or not has no bearing on GitHub/Microsoft having a de-facto monopoly here. If you want to bring a counter argument that should at least include the name GitLab.

[sreevisakh]

GitHub and other forges are value added services on top of git. They wouldn't be this popular if it weren't for issue trackers and merge managers, CI and that sort of stuff. They are centralized and can't be migrated out once an account is locked. GitHub can be considered a monopoly because recruiters tend to neglect repos elsewhere. We really need decentralized/federated alternatives to that.

[threatofrain]

I would argue the market is social Git hosting, of which Gitlab and BitBucket are competitors.