[ants_everywhere]

My general point of view is that FOSS software is a public good, and that we should aim to maximize the availability of that public good.

This point of view contrasts with other views, for example I don't see much value in ideological purity for its own sake.

For that reason, I think it's a bit foolish to dissuade people from hosting on GitHub as long as Microsoft is subsidizing bandwidth and hosting costs. You might as well stick MSFT with the bill.

But if you go that route, you do kinda have to keep your eyes open to the real possibility of an eventual rug pool. Or even just that MSFT will make incremental cost saving changes that render some uses of GitHub increasingly unusable over time.

[jampekka]

Short term maybe. But Github has already a kind of monopoly on git web interfaces. Package managers (e.g. npm) already have preferential treatment for it, and adding "github" to a search term is quite a standard way to search for source code.

My guess is that sooner or later we'll see EEE. GitHub will slowly get more and more tied with MSFT technology (already ongoing), and at some point MSFT will want to start squeezing profits with their lock-in one way or another.

IMHO Microsoft shouldn't have been allowed to buy GitHub. In general it's really not a good situation that so few megacorporations dominate the software industry. But the regulation is broken.

[marginalia_nu]

This has already happened though. If worse comes to worst, we'll just move off it like we did when sourceforge went to shit. The neat part of git is that it's inherently decentralized. You can trivially re-point it to a new upstream.

[pm215]

The git repo, sure. It's all the workflow stuff around it that is harder to migrate -- issue reporting, what workflow you use for code review and merging changes, CI, etc. Those too can be moved, but I wouldn't use the word "trivial" -- there's potentially a lot of work there with migrating old issue data across, figuring out what changes to everybody's dev workflow the new platform will require versus what can stay the same, adjusting or rewriting CI configs, and so on.

[bayindirh]

> My guess is that sooner or later we'll see EEE.

They're using every open repository to train CoPilot and sell your code and derivations of it $10/pop. Do you need any more steps?

[ants_everywhere]

Yes I agree with your assessment. MSFT has already started putting things like search behind a log in barrier for example.

I think it's prudent to mirror to another hosting service, even if it's just a Gitlab or similar instance that is only accessible to the repo author. That way they can always pivot away from GitHub by productionizing the backup.

[lrvick]

I will note Codeberg built-in support for automated mirroring from GitHub.

[Dalewyn]

>sooner or later

For some context it's been 6 years since Github was acquired by Microsoft and over 12 years since Microsoft first made their appearance.

I think Microsoft has a great track record here, EEEs in other ventures aside.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitHub#Acquisition_by_Microsof...

[masfoobar]

This might be an ignorant statement on my part - but I don't see how I am "locked-in" to using github.

If I have any software to share on a github page - it is simple a git repository. Whats stopping me moving that over to another web host?

If the projects are private -- can host them on my own server... or the company I work for.

All github really has it popularity. If you have created something really, really cool - it might not get the recognition if not on github. However, there are plenty of ways to advertise it - like on here, or other media outlets.

Not disagreeing with you and, yes, maybe I am missing the point here. I was sad when I heard M$ owned Github and I would not be surprised if there is a long tern goal in relation to the `EEE`

I work for companies that are all in on M$ products.. not just Office, etc.. but the development tools like SQL Server, .NET etc. Outside I will always push for alternatives.

EDIT -- added extra.. I think it will be interesting when large projects start to have issues with the slow M$ changes with github and decide to move away, or create their own. For example, the linux kernel! That would be pretty big news and might start rippling effect.

[sesm]

MS is already squeezing profits from Github with CI (Github Actions).

[madeofpalk]

How is charging for compute "squeezing profits"? It's surprising how free Github Actions is.

[mrd3v0]

This utilitarian point of view quickly crumbles once it stops naïvely looking at profit-driven organisations as anything but what they actually are: money-making machines. The first and foremost goal is the money, not the software, certainly not the end this POV claims the means maximise for. It is not a possibility, it is a certainty, especially given that $MSFT is a publicly-traded organisations with legally financial obligations to its shareholders.

Framing actual long-term sustainble practices and policies as "ideological purity" is misleading at best and a textbook example of a strawman at worst.

[madeofpalk]

Parent fully acknowledges this. If anything, bringing up "but Github makes money!" is a strawman, as the risks associated with this was already aknowledged. Why is the Free and Open Source community so alergic to anything making money? We all understand that Github and Microsoft are companies that exist to make money. Pointing that out is the "I am very intelligent" https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-som...

This whole article explains how, for the authors worldview, using Github is the long-term sustainable practice for their software.

[Nab443]

I don't think the issue is the "makes money", but the "need to make more money", which happen to increase over time. At some point, they start making money with your code, or your users..

Who knows what ideas are growing behind Microsoft walls to make more money of gihub users? See what happened with sourceforge as an example..

[exe34]

Using M$ bandwidth and storage isn't the same as giving them control over the project though. It's git. You can migrate elsewhere as and when the rug pull happens. Issue tracking might be slightly harder to migrate, but even that might offer an option to clear the backlog and only bring along the really important stuff.

[crabbone]

> It's git.

Not really... Github offers bug-tracker and CI as well as "pages", user management, various automation APIs, Web access, of course... Also, integrations! Want to publish your documentation to readthedocs dot com? -- You need integration with that site! Some really shady languages also now want you to use GitHub Actions to publish packages "to ensure authenticity" (there was a thread on yc just a week or so ago). GitHub can also serve as a built releases repository.

Github tries very hard to make sure users don't migrate elsewhere.

By supporting GitHub (through hosting your code in it) the way it is right now, you will be helping MS to train their editor enhancing features. Bug-testing the free tier of their paid services...

I'm not sure the deal is worth it. I'm much more pro divorcing the private interest from the public good. I'd rather my taxes paid for free software hosting.

[exe34]

Maybe you missed the second half of my post. It's a free service. Feel free not to use it.

[bayindirh]

> I'd rather my taxes paid for free software hosting.

Oh, that's socialism/communism/!capitalism hence bad. /s

P.S.: I'm strongly on the same page with you. Corporations are present to make money, and they always try to differentiate them with closed secret sauce, which is very incompatible with Free and Open Source Software.