[LAU] Some disturbing news

[Chris Cannam]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2018, at 16:46, Paul Davis wrote:
> There are alternatives to GH, and I believe there will always be
> alternatives to GH. Just as many of us jumped ship when sourceforge jumped
> the shark, people will migrate away from GH towards the new alternatives
> that show up if and when MS leads it off the cliff.​

What I think is most interesting about this thread is the common perspective about the company that *currently* runs Github.

This isn't a publicly-funded resource threatened with acquisition by a predatory corporation. It's a service operated by a company -- a sometimes shabby, sometimes brilliant American startup -- threatened with acquisition by what is essentially a mature version of the same thing.

Is it good that our decentralised version-control systems are centralised by such a company already? Should we not be actively hoping that Microsoft take over this thing and destroy it? If not, then why not?


Chris