[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.