This article doesn't compel me to give up github. It seems like it basically talks a lot about how proprietary software is evil and then complains about Copilot.
Then it drops this:
> GitHub's business model has always been “proprietary vendor lock-in”.
How is this Github's business model? Unless you're using Github specific features like Github actions and workflows, it's fairly easy to switch to another Git based host.
Then the article provides "alternatives" that are all lacking important features.
> If you're ready to take on the challenge now and give up GitHub today, we note that CodeBerg and SourceHut0 are excellent options right now.
The article immediately talks about drawbacks with all of these alternatives and then mentions a guide on how to self host using git lab. Why would I go through all the trouble of swapping to a different version control host if I don't gain any value? In addition to not gaining value, I'll also lose features that are very nice to have.
This article doesn't convince me at all. Yes Copilot is questionable and we should pursue the ethics behind what it does, but if you want to convince people to give up Github you should at least be prepared to give an alternative that offers a great deal of feature parity.
> it's fairly easy to switch to another Git based host.
> if you want to convince people to give up Github you should at least be prepared to give an alternative that offers a great deal of feature parity.
These can't both be true. In fact Github is hard to switch away from, because of all the Github features. This is the lock-in. Github then monetizes this by charging for large files (https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/working-with-files/m...), private repos, etc. So the SFC argument is that you should switch away from Github now and get the alternatives to feature parity, to avoid Github getting a monopoly.
Then it drops this:
> GitHub's business model has always been “proprietary vendor lock-in”.
How is this Github's business model? Unless you're using Github specific features like Github actions and workflows, it's fairly easy to switch to another Git based host.
Then the article provides "alternatives" that are all lacking important features.
> If you're ready to take on the challenge now and give up GitHub today, we note that CodeBerg and SourceHut0 are excellent options right now.
The article immediately talks about drawbacks with all of these alternatives and then mentions a guide on how to self host using git lab. Why would I go through all the trouble of swapping to a different version control host if I don't gain any value? In addition to not gaining value, I'll also lose features that are very nice to have.
This article doesn't convince me at all. Yes Copilot is questionable and we should pursue the ethics behind what it does, but if you want to convince people to give up Github you should at least be prepared to give an alternative that offers a great deal of feature parity.