Also, quite a few of the non-profits behind the projects you mentioned have multi-million dollar budgets that they can use to administer their git instance, if needed. I don’t think “if they can do it, you can” is a strong argument for those.
You don't need a 'multi-million dollar budget' to self-host a git repo and may of these open-source projects have been doing so even before GitHub existed for years. Even if they did have such a budget, there isn't an excuse left to self-host and avoid going 'all in' on GitHub.
At the very least I would expect something like what ReactOS is doing by having a self-hosted backup just in case GitHub goes down or vice-versa. [1]
Looks like that is proving to be useful.
I never made that claim. The argument was “if X can do it, so can you”.
I pointed out that _some_of_these_ (Mozilla, likely the most extreme of them, had over $400 million in revenues in 2020), are quite different from the typical ‘you’, invalidating that argument.
As always, invalidating an argument doesn’t mean its conclusion is wrong.
So when are you going to question this user [0] and others here planning to do the same thing for not having a 'multi-million dollar budget' for self-hosting their own services then?
Since clearly according to you they 'can't do it', despite me saying 'if X can do it so can someone else'. Where 'X' can be even a toy project like RedoxOS, or a messenger project like GNU Ring hosted by themselves and accessed via a subdomain.
Seems like they and other lesser known and funded open-source projects are doing just fine like that for years.
I don't even worry about a strong backup strategy (besides just making occasional snapshots of the data volumes) because this was all set up with IaC tools (Terraform, Ansible) and I have copies of all the code in local repositories.