Wow, what a pretty aggressive response.
> That's completely made up on your end. I've been doing FOSS for 17 years and the vast majority of people were barely competent with any of them at all beyond whatever their chosen ponyshow was
I doubt either of us has actual figures, so it's "my experience" vs "yours" (and full of anecdotal bias which I'm willing to admit). At least what's factual is that a decade ago, the versoning and tooling ecosystem was much more diverse: where today github/-actions/-CI/-issues/… is a quasi-monopoly you would bump into a new hosting solution/bug-tracking, reviews and CA build systems every other week, and the major open-source projects were either using CVS, SVN, GIT or HG. So, in proportions, more people had to be able to switch from a system to another, just out of practical considerations.
And I'm not even looking back pretending that things were perfect back then, I'm only suggesting that the monoculture which ensued killed a lot of competition, innovation and convenience, from which we could benefit today, on top of increased standardization (did you know for instance that hg can pull and push to git?)
> For every 1 person doing this 50 just stuck with whatever they used and wouldn't bother. I've literally seen people refuse to contribute to a project over tabs vs spaces, and people still do this with git vs hg today, just not as much today.
There's some truth to that, but it's a pretty extreme view. All projects can benefit from a lower entry bar and should be as welcoming as feasible, but optimizing for drive-by contributions at the expense of more meaningful involvement is destructive on the long run: anyone having worked on larger projects knows that the bulk of the effort is carried by a smaller group of dedicated people over long periods of time, not hundreds of over-the-fence-throwing typo-fixes. And I'm totally siding with projects who don't want to adopt the github ways of organizing their work where it means making long-haul contributor's lives more difficult.
> More people use Git and contribute to FOSS in a single day in 2022 than every developer who knew all these tools combined back in 2008 or whatever.
[Ref. Needed]
> > Things really became one-sided after github started gamifying open-source contributions, and when a new generation who perhaps grew-up in a more competitive academic setting took it as an opportunity to make their resume more impressive.
> Sorry, but I consider this to be a similarly made up claim that's just sour grapes.
If "gamified" may not be the right term, you certainly can't be oblivious to how often people equate their github activity to their resume, and how it's used as a token of value by job hunters and recruiters alike. Putting aside the "merit" of most contributions, this really contributed to people "demanding" from projects to move to github, to bring visibility on themselves (before the interests of the project itself), hence the centralization around the single largest platform. I don't know about you, but I find this state of affairs quite discomforting.