[bob1029]

Well maybe our "naive" approach might be worth investigating. Because we put so little time into ridiculous missions like "distributed issues because git is also distributed", we are able to focus more on the product, customers, and processes. You know, things that actually drive business value and pay out everyones' bonus checks at the end of the year.

We have actually considered doing a complete in-house implementation of the things that GitHub handles, because we do already have an in-house management system that integrates with GitHub's API. But, we realized that we would then be in the business of maintaining what is effectively the GitHub product for a market size of 1 customer.

[p5a0u9l]

i’m saying it’s ok to be pragmatic and fully accept that you are Microsoft’s target demographic. they’re solving the annoying bits so you can focus on what’s important to you.

but, that’s not the end of the story. there may likely be gains found with new innovations.

companies like github are not incentivized to revolutionize “what works”. they’re incentivized to get you to rely increasingly on their services. and as long as that works for you, great!

i’m just saying, don’t discount efforts made to make github obsolete.

[goseeastarwar]

The nerds (I say that will all due respect) will fight your stance on this until the end of time, but of course you're correct. There have been discussions of distributed GitHub since the day the website launched, but the concept will never take off. 99.99% of developers understand the tools are a means to an end, not the thing worth focusing on.

[Existenceblinks]

> and pay out everyones' bonus checks at the end of the year

Yes. This is understated. Poor(financially) developers need to make money with lowest resistance(cost). Then, when you have enough for yourself and family, you can help or join rebels to fight for whatever you think is right.