3 ms·
Doesn't seem like Microsoft managers care - it's not their core business, so any time anyone complains about issues with GitHub they probably think something al
by Ronsenshi 8mo ago
Doesn't seem like Microsoft managers care - it's not their core business, so any time anyone complains about issues with GitHub they probably think something along the line of "peasants whining again".
Must be nice to be a monopoly that has most of the businesses in the world as their hostages.
- Aeolun 8mo agoAt one point Gitlab seemed like it wanted to compete, but then they killed all the personal and SMB plans, and now they’re just out of the picture for a lot of people. Their team plan is more expensive that GH’s enterprise plan.
- hirako2000 8mo agoIPO and quarterly demand for profit. Gitlab was generous first, to rise as a valid alternative to GitHub. They never got the comminity aspect right, perhaps aiming for profitability with a focus on the runners instances which is how they make money. With profitability, the IPO made sense. GitHub probably had a different strategy..keep it generous, get the entire open source community, keep raising money and one day someone will buys us out for billions. We we are, Microsoft goal is to capture the community, it works. It's sticky.
- direwolf20 8mo agoCodeberg is a nonprofit community project aiming to replicate that. You can use it today.
- hirako2000 8mo agoI've used it, it's great, more like what GitHub was meant to be. There is Forgejo. I find it more stable, I self host that. It never suffered an outage in 2 years that I had it running and is faster than GitHub.
- direwolf20 8mo agoCodeberg is a public instance of the Forgejo software, which you can also host yourself.
- shiroiuma 8mo agoYes, but this also means that countless open-source projects are in what appears to be a precarious position. What if MS one day decides all this free hosting isn't worth it, and just cuts it off? There aren't really any alternatives I know of, except bad ol' Sourceforge I guess.