But my point was that it’s a bad analogy. People are opting out of GitHub despite the alternatives having fewer features. You can read that as an ideological choice or as a YAGNI one. If it’s ideological, then there’s no competitive or feature angle at all; people are doing it because it seems right to them.
(To be clear, I have no problem with this. I think GitHub only gets better after public pressure, as we’ve seen with the last N cycles of product atrophy.)
Turns out, sometimes shedding "functionality" is really shedding cruft that holds the core functionality back.
Is this the case for Codeberg vs. Github? I don't know, and I'm not gonna base my argument on unverfieable predictions of the future.
So we'll have to wait and see. But it sure looks to me like many of the prime arguments for github boil down to "well, it's big and has lots of stuff".
I'm pretty sure, shortly after the motorized vehicle was made commercialy available, there were only a "handful of remotely meaningful" people and companies who stopped using horses.
Do tell: How many horses are around on todays streets?