And GitHub can afford to offer all of these things for free because they are owned by Microsoft and they are playing the long game. CoPilot is probably one of monetization steps coming.
I have been planing to switch to GitLab because of it, even though I don't have any important public projects currently.
This Blog post is very helpful.
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/jun/30/give-up-github-la...
I choose gitlab because IMO its the only full GitHub alternative, Gitea lacks advanced CI, while Gitlab has everything GH has and more.
Also if dont really agree that if you care about the platform being open source, that you should use SourceHut.
New user experience is horrible IMO, its lacks a lot of stuff GitHub has, and the UI isn't great.
IMO the best alternative is GitLab for a complete GH alternative, and Gitea for core stuff.
[0]: https://drewdevault.com/2022/03/29/free-software-free-infras...
Note that GitLab is not really the answer to this problem. It's open core, subservient to its investors, and pulls a lot of stupid shit like this. If you want the GitHub-style workflow and UI, go with Codeberg or another Gitea instance.
Github is and always has been a closed platform. It's also responsible for the largest explosion of open source activity from any single source in the last twenty years. Your argument relies on the assumption that the cost of migrating away from Github is a cost a FOSS project can pay and survive, which is a pretty heavy assumption as far as those things go. Even if the alternatives were comparable in UX, and they're not, there are entire ecosystems (Node, Golang, RubyGems, brew, etc.) that explicitly depend on Github. If you measure your software's success by any metric other than how well it aligns to your ethics, it's hard to justify anything but Github for a FOSS project.
Most people, IME, write FOSS software so people can find and use it. I remember the era when SourceForge was more-or-less the best thing you could hope for as far as central repositories were concerned, but they weren't much more than free static web hosting. I remember how difficult it was to contribute to Apache projects because figuring out their esoteric source control and patch process was so daunting. I remember googling for software packages to use and not having an easy route to quickly gauge whether its quality was worth investing further research. I wouldn't like to go back to a world where everything was hosted on free software if it means losing all the knowledge that exists in that one place.
There definitely seem like more important windmills to tilt at than pointing at the engine that drives the entire FOSS ecosystem and saying it's not good enough by the most stringent of ethical standards.
Many people write FOSS for many different reasons. Chasing popularity is among the worst, and using GitHub is a poor way of achieving it regardless.
GitHub is not good enough. Placing all of our FOSS eggs in a proprietary basket which is incompatible with FOSS values is an absolutely foolish thing to do. The alternatives exist and are equal to the task, if not exceptional.
This is why pure FOSS hasn't, doesn't, and won't win. This overly moralistic posturing at every turn drives people away.
This isn't to mention also the issues regarding code ownership, where GitHub now trains their Co-Pilot AI on code under any license.
> Note that GitLab is not really the answer to this problem. It's open core, subservient to its investors, and pulls a lot of stupid shit like this.
Even if GitLab pulled out on their payed-tiers now, it's too late. This has been coming for years with the paid version of GitLab features vs the free version, which always ran behind on functionality.
We are currently considering our options to move away from GitLab. Ideally we look for tickets, merge/pull requests, CI and the ability to allow the public to contribute.
@ddevault We have been looking at SourceHut at an alternative. Specifically some questions for you:
1. Will you have a non-email merge/patch system for SourceHut in the near future [1]? The problem isn't so much for our team, but to encourage external people to help with our project who are used to the likes of GitHub and GitLab.
2. With regards to pricing for SourceHut, how will the pricing look in the future [2]? We have a small project that could pay per person/group, but would struggle to pay what GitLab are asking [3]. GitHib pricing is better, but obviously your code then becomes the product.
Great work in any case, I really enjoy seeing your blog updates.
[1] https://drewdevault.com/2022/07/25/Code-review-with-aerc.htm...
I remember their argument is that their training is considered fair use, legal/moral questions aside, doesn't it means that they can also justify using projects hosted on alternative platforms for training?
https://spacepub.space/w/no6jnhHeUrt2E5ST168tRL
2: TBD, but we will consult with the community before making any final calls. There will be at least 90 days notice before any pricing changes once the long-term pricing is finalized. It definitely won't be anything near GitLab's extortionate pricing.
(Not that I think GitLab - at least in its cloud form - is much better, but alas.)
There may have been reasons to do this in the past (e.g. lack of integrated CI) but I'm not convinced those arguments really hold anymore in 2022. If you're a maintainer and prioritising interoperability and the lowest barrier to entry for potential contributors and you don't care about it being proprietary/owned by MSFT you pick GitHub. If you're prioritising a FOSS stack, good tooling offering and low-weight pages with excellent performance, you pick something like SourceHut.
For everyone reliant on software published by maintainers who have already made this decision historically, it's reassuring the right decision has been made here, but a bit worrying they were needing to consider a step this far in the first place. Combined with their poor pay for engineers (discussed to death here on HN already), it does make you think a bit about their finances.