[1]: https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/DevelopmentInfrastructure...
[2]: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Phabrica...
Thankfully, with Docker, hosting complex software has become easier. It’s still not free though.
There’s also the thing about availability. Even with GitHub going down every now and then, a self-hosted solution will probably do worse.
The issues, wiki, CI, and user-ecosystem of github aren't portable. If Github shut down, changed their policies, or just simply did something you don't like, you have no recourse if you bond your software to their platform.
If you use gitlab, phabricator, gogs, or any other open source solution, either you are hosting it yourself - everyone wins - or you are using a centralized host equivalent to github, except now if they pull the rug out from under you you still have all the open source releases up to that point that you can pivot to - and you wouldn't necessarily need to self host, because someone will pick up the reins.
This is not in GitLab yet. What is in Gitlab is a way to export your projects including all the issues so you can import them on a self hosted server without losing fidelity. But that doesn't change the day to day workflow.
Also, the more players we have the less proprietary web interfaces for things like issues and PR will dominate.
I'm just waiting for GitHub to be bought up by MS and turn into Sourceforge 2.0.
github is loosing money like crazy while gitlab and bitbucket are actually profitable.
They're not expecting to be profitable right now but their loses have risen quite a bit.
Sure it's possible but I don't get it. Don't forget as more of these OSS projects take advantage of GitLab's free repositories the more money GitLab will lose.
But git isn't putting all your eggs in one basket. It's a distributed version control system. GitHub is one way to access your source but it doesn't have to be the only one. That's purely a choice made by folks.
If you want to put your eggs into many baskets then great! But that doesn't prevent you from using GitHub at all.
In theory, yes. In practice you quickly end up having long discussions in "pull requests" and therelike and all references using github.com URLs. If (let's hope that doesn't happen) Github one day does what Sourceforge did and injects ads and malware you're in trouble as everybody still points to their domain.
As soon as you start using PRs, you almost certainly have part of your project's version control history (the reasons for changes) in the PR discussions, and now if Github ever shuts down you have dataloss.
I'm curious what you mean by this. In a world of discontinued acquihired services and breaking changes, firebase has just kept working across major organizational and product changes.
For example you can still use the old client libraries and URLs from before google bought them and it just works. REST urls, admin UI urls, everything redirects perfectly.
Git is a distributed system but almost every single time GitHub goes down you get people complaining about OSS and others using / relying on GitHub but honestly you really don't have to at all. Git was designed so you wouldn't need to.
So yeah hating on GitHub can be a bit popular on HN.
There was a recent discussion about ElectronConf (organised by GitHub) that highlights this [1].
It doesn't have a culture so this is really inflammatory, and unnecessarily so. Or were you referring to GitHub the organization and not the set of people that use it?
They are also somewhat infamous for having hired one self-proclaimed "notorious SJW" who previously harassed a GitHub user for his contribution to some unrelated Twitter flamewar and later went on to work at GitHub on "community management and anti-harassment tools". Go figure.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_GitHub#Russia