1. 5
  1.  

  2. 6

    I for one would welcome the exodus of people fleeing. :)

    1. 6

      Better get moving on that CVSHub…

      1. 5

        I said I’d welcome the exodus, not the people…

      2. 4

        I always think it’s not about moving away, but more about not giving a single company too much power. Right now if Github went down hell would break loose.

        We already saw that Github is essential enough to have made China reconsider its ban on it (which IIRC happened because HTTPS meant they couldn’t block single pages), and even though we have alternatives right now (Bitbucket, Gitlab), a lot of important projects are only available through Github (shame that Google closed down GCode and moved everything there).

        It’s nice that git is good enough that a whole project can be rehosted elsewhere from a cloned copy, but is it right to wait for a disaster to happen before doing that?

        This applies to Github wether or not it gets bought from Microsoft.

      3. 4

        If MS buys GitHub, toooons of people would move on to GitLab, I would love that, it means GitLab would get a huge boost of usage.

        1. 1

          Maybe.

          I feel like an entrepreneuring group of individuals would try to build the next GitHub, and maybe take GitLab as a base. From my perspective, GitLab has two major downsides, they seem to be shoving any and every feature they can think of into it, and it just feels significantly slower than GitHub.

          This may also lead to a resurgence of people doing their own project hosting, or a bunch of smaller scale project hosts with different, yet competing feature sets.

          1. 1

            About the speed, I think that’s simply because 1) it’s in Ruby and 2) they don’t have a huge server infrastructure like GitHub probably does for it’s free repo service.

            FTR, IIRC GitHub also was in Ruby but they’ve since moved on to other stuff in a lot of their system’s parts.