Sure, I know a lot of projects have been on GH since before MS bought it, but they’ve owned it for quite a while now, so we really should be seeing better migration out by now, no?

Codeberg is nonprofit which seems more in the spirit of the Linux ecosystem overall. GH is for-profit…

  • dwt@feddit.orgDeutsch
    1·
    11 minutes ago

    A friend of mine sees using GitHub as microslop paying reparations to open source.

  • ian@feddit.ukEnglish
    1·
    37 minutes ago

    I joined Github and others, years ago to report bugs in software. But now I rage quit Github. No more bugs from me unless you move your application to a more acceptable platform. I suggest every bug reporter user do likewise. Screw Microsoft.

  • Xanthrax@lemmy.world
    13·
    3 hours ago

    Why aren’t all the reddit users over here yet? Consolidation and ease of use. Big number make brain happy.

  • quick_snail@feddit.nl
    5·
    3 hours ago

    Codeberg doesn’t offer CI dinners for macOS for free.

    It’s important if you have cross platform apps

  • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    172·
    6 hours ago

    Did you download the source code? It’s on GitHub. It’s literally on GitLab. It’s on Bitbucket with ads. It’s literally on SourceForge. You can probably find it on Savannah. Dude it’s on Azure DevOps. It’s a Codeberg project. It’s on Gitea. You can download it on Gitea. You can go to Gitea and download it. Log into Gitea right now. Go to Gitea. Dive into Gitea. You can Gitea it. It’s on Gitea. Gitea has it for you. Gitea has it for you.

  • gwl [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    21·
    8 hours ago

    Momentum and time and effort to migrate.

    And there’s automated workflows such as GitHub Actions and ci/cd integrations that don’t have 1-to-1 replacements, which would mean extra work (for quite strained teams of volunteers)

  • BartyDeCanter@piefed.socialEnglish
    50·
    12 hours ago

    Two main reasons: history and network effects.

    GitHub was an independent company for a decade that provided a vastly superior service to what it replaced, primarily SourceForge. And it was free for FOSS projects, while charging for closed ones.

    The improvements paid for by the closed source customers trickled out to everyone. So, it became the best place for FOSS developers, large and small. And as more people moved to GH, the more reason there was to move to it.

    Of course, it was constantly bleeding money and eventually had to do something. That ended up being selling to MS.

    There was a lot of trepidation about this, but for the first few years they not only kept their promise about supporting FOSS, but actually made it better by allowing small private repos to get many of the services that were previously gated for open FOSS or paid repos.

    And the alternatives were stil not as good, and just as importantly didn’t have the user networking that GH does.

    Now, some FOSS people are starting to look elsewhere, Codeberg, self-hosted Forgejo, and others. They have come a long way and are nearing feature parity, particularly for smallish projects. But the network effects of discovery and reputation are strong, and GH still provides a few more useful features.

    I’ve moved my private repos to self hosted Forgejo, but my public ones are still on GH as push mirrors. I’m not ready to give up the discoverability and Mac/Windows CI runners that I can get from GH for free. I hope to be able to some day, but not yet.

    • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
      5·
      4 hours ago

      There was a lot of trepidation about this, but for the first few years they not only kept their promise about supporting FOSS, but actually made it better by allowing small private repos to get many of the services that were previously gated for open FOSS or paid repos.

      • They embraced! :D
      • They extended! :D
      • . . .aw, shit. :/

      I’ve only a basic understanding of using Git myself, but I think I’m gonna learn it with a self-hosted Forgejo for my Godot projects too.

      Then for the parts that don’t have feature parity, I won’t know what I’m missing, and I have no need for “iNdUsTrY sTaNdArD LeAdiNg oPtiMiZeD sYnErGyStiC wOrKfLoWs” or whatever hahaha.

      It does definitely present a conundrum if you want people to see your open source software though. Damn network effect. =\

      • BartyDeCanter@piefed.socialEnglish
        5·
        3 hours ago

        The number one thing to remember about git is that you don’t need a full hosting service around it for basic functionality. If it’s just you, a single local repo will probably serve you just fine, maybe use a bare repo on your main machine or a Pi-level device if you like as a remote/backup. Just git init or git init --bare and you’re good to go. GitHub, Codeberg, Forgejo, and all the others exist to serve multi-contributor and/or public project-level needs.

        The number two thing to remember is that it is based around graph theory.

  • 9point6@lemmy.world
    70·
    14 hours ago

    GitHub has been around for nearly 2 decades and was largely considered a mostly good thing until maybe the past couple of years. Also important to add that Microsoft seems to mostly have left it alone for the first couple of years (possibly with the exception of Atom, which it left very alone)

    In addition to people just generally being slow to change, changing can take quite a bit of effort for some projects for varying reasons. Many of those same projects struggle to keep up with the maintenance workload, so they’re not going to jump at the chance to add more work to their plates.

    Finally, some people just don’t care. For instance, the MIT license being popular is pretty hard evidence that FOSS doesn’t necessarily mean anti-corporate, and for many users GitHub still more or less does what it says on the tin.

    Though I will say if the service disruptions and ad-injection bullshit continue you’ll only see GitHub competitors grow. GitLab seems to be going after their enterprise customers with some success.

    • KssioAug@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      182·
      14 hours ago

      For instance, the MIT license being popular is pretty hard evidence that FOSS doesn’t necessarily mean anti-corporate, and for many users GitHub still more or less does what it says on the tin.

      I’m pretty sure that MIT license is that popular out of ignorance, instead of an informed decision to allow corporate to steal and make money out of their code.

        • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
          4·
          3 hours ago

          I remember this confusion a LOT back when main-branch Blender had its own game engine built in.

          Forums were full of people saying crap like :

          “Don’t use that, because since you used Blender which is GPL it means you have to provide the source code to your incredible GOTY contender and then everybody will beat you at life!!!”

      • tabular@lemmy.worldEnglish
        17·
        14 hours ago

        I’d like to think that is so but some here will argue non-copyleft licenses are “more free”. Ime they don’t reply after I point out that’s the freedom to deny others freedom.

      • CoryCoolguy@lemmy.myserv.one
        62·
        10 hours ago

        Respectfully disagree. I can only speculate why other developers choose MIT. But for small and medium-sized projects, a more restrictive license is unlikely to protect them from this scenario anyway. And if that’s true, one could argue it’s better to go down a road where corporate sponsorships are potentially more likely.

        Personally, I often choose MIT because I don’t care who uses my code and for what, and I’d prefer that it be easy to borrow from. I used to be concerned about how my code was used, but over the years I’ve developed a strong dislike for copyright as a concept in general so I fight it how I can. Some of my projects are so simple that even MIT seems like overkill. In those cases I use the Unlicense.

  • DFX4509B@lemmy.wtfEnglish
    8·
    10 hours ago

    Also, what if MS or the government starts getting hostile and taking down Linux and other FOSS repos they don’t like?

    • BartyDeCanter@piefed.socialEnglish
      4·
      3 hours ago

      Remember that Git is a distributed VCS, so no git repo is dependent on a central server. Everything else about the project might be heavily dependent on GH, but any active developer is going to have a full copy of the code with history on their main workstation.

      That being said, it highly depends on the project, but I’d put it into a few buckets.

      1. Un/barely maintained projects - This is by far the largest number of repos, and many of them are used as dependencies by all sorts of projects. The truly unmaintained ones would vanish, and I bet most of the barely maintained ones would as well. The most important of these would probably be resurrected since their code will be sitting on all sorts of drives, but it will be a mess. Take a look at https://nesbitt.io/2026/05/08/weekend-at-bernies.html for an idea.
      2. Small individually actively maintained projects - There are a lot of these and many of them could continue to be just fine, depending on how much of the full GH feature set they use. They would lose all the PRs, wiki spaces, discussions, issues, and maybe even the project page itself that are hosted on GH. For most projects it would be an annoyance to have lost all that, but if it’s a small enough project that one person is maintaining it, it’s probably small enough to pull over to something else reasonably easily depending on how all in they are on GH tools and their use of type 1repos. And a project with only one main contributor is unlikely to fragment.
      3. Mid-sized active projects - Probably the hardest hit. A lot of these are all-in on the GH tools, particularly issues and CI. Losing that would hurt a lot because the project is big enough to really need those tools and uses them at a volume that they can’t just host on the leads laptop. These are also going to take a lot of work to set up the project infrastructure elsewhere. And this would probably be the sort of thing to push and simmering tensions to erupt, leading to fragmentation.
      4. The big projects - Probably the least hardest hit. Most of these are just using GH as a push mirror. The core team probably has a functioning private communication and governance system, their own issue tracker (even if it pulls from GH), documentation, and public discussion groups. Most of these run their own private CI. And they are the ones most likely for another host to step in and offer to help.

      So the little stuff? Probably going to be annoyed or not care a lot. The big stuff? Same thing. But that middle group would be hurt.

      • BartyDeCanter@piefed.socialEnglish
        12·
        11 hours ago
        1. CI runners - GH offers free CI runners for a variety of OSs. I can automatically test my code on Linux/Mac/Windows for free on GH. No one else offers that because it is very expensive. You need windows licenses and Apple hardware. And Codeberg only offers it on Linux after a back and forth discussion. Plus, while simple GH CI Actions move to Forgejo Actions pretty easily, more complex ones require a complete rewrite.
        2. Better issue tracking - FJ’s issue tracking is pretty good, and perfetcly fine for small projects, but GH’s is better.
        3. Better CLI - fj is decent and improving, but gh is better
        4. Better project pages - Codeberg Pages is decent and improving, but GH Pages are better.
        5. Lots of other small things - Codeberg is decent and improving, GH is better.

        For most people, myself included, the only thing that really matters are the CI runners. But that is also the one thing that costs the most to support.

      • Alex@lemmy.ml
        23·
        14 hours ago

        Because running servers costs money. The project I work on gets donations towards it’s CI costs and it’s not insignificant.

    • Loren@beehaw.orgEnglish
      11·
      15 hours ago

      It really is quite amazing how fast its gone completely to shit. The site is so fucking slow so much of the time. I’ve started moving my projects one-by-one to a Forgejo instance I control, the main hurdle is just updating actions workflows to work there.

      • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
        6·
        15 hours ago

        In hindsight the period 2015-2022 was a kind of a golden age for Microsoft.
        They actually made (well, acquired) some good software, and even not-so-good stuff like Azure had a point of existing.

        Of course it all went downhill very quickly.

  • plutopos@lemmy.zip
    282·
    16 hours ago

    Arguably the biggest contributor to the Linux ecosystem is Red Hat, a for-profit company that offers its technologies to the Israeli military among other things. The biggest contributor to the Linux kernel is Red Har, while the second biggest is Meta. The Linux ecosystem is not inherently nonprofit!

  • Eggymatrix@sh.itjust.works
    243·
    15 hours ago

    You seem to think that the idea is that linux and most FOSS projects are some carebear nonprofit charity organization. You are wrong.

    In most cases the idea is that open source work is there because it is easier to share technological progress if multiple companies work at it. And because of this it is just better than the alternative. The linux kernel is worked on by multiple large corporations that are in the business of making money using servers. If these servers run better then they make more money. To make them run better for them they need to implement their features and because of the licence and the ecosystem they need to publish these modifications back to the upstream.

    All this works so good because a lot of companies make a lot of money with it.

    Github will be used as long as it does not interfere with the workflow or with the legal aspects, nobody cares about the spirit nearly as much as you think

    • Dymonika@lemmy.mlOP
      6·
      15 hours ago

      Fair, but what about the Copilot-pockmarking? And they’re always one step away from a paywall… Why wait until it gets that bad versus at least duplicating elsewhere now?