5 ms·

> what exactly is being lost by moving the repository to GitHub? Alternatives to github We lament Google's browser engine monopoly, but putting the vast major

by Aachen 1y ago

> what exactly is being lost by moving the repository to GitHub? Alternatives to github We lament Google's browser engine monopoly, but putting the vast majority of open source projects on github is just the expected course to take. I guess we'll repeat history once microsoft decides to set in the enshittification, maybe one day mobile OSes replace Windows and they're strapped for cash, who knows, but it's a centralised closed system owned by a corporation that absolutely adores FOSS I don't mind any particular project (such as this one) being in Github and I can understand that Mozilla chooses the easy path, they've got bigger problems after all, but it's not like there are no concerns with everyone and everything moving to github

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
lpln3452 1y ago
Did you ever use the alternatives before GitHub took off? GitLab? It was awful. Slow, and paying for that kind of experience felt like a bad joke. It's much better now but it was borderline unusable back in the day. Or SourceForge, before Git was mainstream? Also terrible. GitHub succeeded because it quickly established itself as a decent way to host Git - not because it was exceptional, but because the competition had abysmal UX. Unlike other lock-in-prone services, moving a Git project is trivial. If GitHub loses its advantages due to enshittification, you just move. Case in point: Mozilla hopping on and off GitHub, as this article shows.
- Philpax 1y ago
  I believe GitLab post-dates GitHub, but I otherwise agree with the sentiment.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - lpln3452 1y ago
    You're right. But as far as I remember, neither GitHub nor GitLab were really mainstream at the time. I think the real competition began around the same time.
- matkoniecz 1y ago
  > Unlike other lock-in-prone services, moving a Git project is trivial. not really just moving issue tracker and discussions is highly annoying trying to get your users to move is likely hard and you will lose many still, may be easy in comparison

by Aachen 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

lpln3452 1y ago

Did you ever use the alternatives before GitHub took off? GitLab? It was awful. Slow, and paying for that kind of experience felt like a bad joke. It's much better now but it was borderline unusable back in the day. Or SourceForge, before Git was mainstream? Also terrible. GitHub succeeded because it quickly established itself as a decent way to host Git - not because it was exceptional, but because the competition had abysmal UX. Unlike other lock-in-prone services, moving a Git project is trivial. If GitHub loses its advantages due to enshittification, you just move. Case in point: Mozilla hopping on and off GitHub, as this article shows.

Philpax 1y ago
I believe GitLab post-dates GitHub, but I otherwise agree with the sentiment.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- lpln3452 1y ago
  You're right. But as far as I remember, neither GitHub nor GitLab were really mainstream at the time. I think the real competition began around the same time.
matkoniecz 1y ago
> Unlike other lock-in-prone services, moving a Git project is trivial. not really just moving issue tracker and discussions is highly annoying trying to get your users to move is likely hard and you will lose many still, may be easy in comparison