Github is actively merging features of Azure DevOps and they plan to merge the two eventually, also business model changes, integration with VS Code, Azure, etc.

Github is actively within Microsoft ecosystem and all for the better of both sides from my experience.

Xamarin was crap before the Microsoft acquisition, it was improving at great pace afterwards and it's pretty integrated into .NET standard story (but still crap last time I used it 3 years ago) - I don't even see how you could say anything like they left them alone, feels more like they got rolled up in to .NET devision, again for the better of both (Mono was still the only solution for some scenarios until very recently even outside of mobile)

The fact that you can still talk about them as separate is what I mean. It isn't some MS brand Xamarin. It's still Xamarin.

Github is still Github.

Of course Microsoft played a part in the progress. Try to be more generous with your nitpicking.

What ? Xamarin is defacto Microsoft Xamarin, it's even integrated in to their domain and Xamarin Studio got rebranded to Visual Studio Mac.

Github is a separate issue, they can't rebrand without huge value loss.

I see the nitpicking continues.

Is the Xamarin brand still strong?

Yes.

Nothing else is important. It is clearly a separate brand which is OBVIOUSLY going to be integrated (otherwise why buy it?)

But it remains a differentiable entity with the power of Microsoft behind it.

Continue nitpicking.

Github seems to have gotten some fire in their ass in the last 1-2 years. Hard to say whether that is because of Microsoft or competition of Gitlab, or both.

I comparison shopped Gitlab vs Github a few years back, and it was a joke: Gitlab killed Github on features and price. They still do. I'm not overly attached to either platform, but clearly Github has ridden on their laurels hard for a long time and Gitlab has not.

No comment on the merit of one vs other but with experience selling software, sometimes fewer features is better (lets you target better initially.)

If Github were a startup trying to get a solid MVP together, sure. However, Github was charging premium prices for an enterprise-grade product, but they were missing a super basic enterprise feature: they weren't able to connect LDAP groups to Github groups.

Having the resources of Microsoft and a vision you want to execute on might be why they allowed themselves to get bought.

All of the founders except one were already gone, and the remaining one left immediately after the acquisition closed. It wasn't about executing a vision, it was about cashing out.

I did say "might be" :-)