3 Jun
2018
3 Jun
'18
11:41 p.m.
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