The 2000s called and are asking for the "M$ sucks!" attitude back... that "article" is laughable.

If a project desires attracting contributors, it needs to reduce friction points as much as possible. Github is the code repository with which most developers are familiar. Once you contribute to one project on Github, you can more easily transfer that knowledge to contribute to a second project also hosted on Github then on other competing site, whether they use git or no.

Given the current situation, contrary to what the author affirms, important open source project that wish to attract contributors should probably use Github.

I would guess the risk here is pretty low. People pay Github to be what it is. If it stops being that, people would jump ship quickly.

MSFT buying them even lowers the risk a bit, since they have the backing of a big tech company so they’re financially more secure. And you should keep backups, I don’t care where you’re hosted.

> It is not so much the fact that many projects host their projects on GitHub, it is the fact that many projects haven't secured the code outside of GitHub!

If I'm the maintainer of a project of course I would have backups (even if I trust Microsoft because GitHub could be hacked). And for important open source projects there are probably many people who have a copy of the repo.

Yeah. This is very 90s MSFT complaining.

Also, based on the way git works I’m certain there are dozens of backup copies. But I know I keep specific copies as well. It’s super easy. It’s git.

This guy's blog is full of FUD