Framing actual long-term sustainble practices and policies as "ideological purity" is misleading at best and a textbook example of a strawman at worst.
Framing actual long-term sustainble practices and policies as "ideological purity" is misleading at best and a textbook example of a strawman at worst.
This whole article explains how, for the authors worldview, using Github is the long-term sustainable practice for their software.
Who knows what ideas are growing behind Microsoft walls to make more money of gihub users? See what happened with sourceforge as an example..
Not really... Github offers bug-tracker and CI as well as "pages", user management, various automation APIs, Web access, of course... Also, integrations! Want to publish your documentation to readthedocs dot com? -- You need integration with that site! Some really shady languages also now want you to use GitHub Actions to publish packages "to ensure authenticity" (there was a thread on yc just a week or so ago). GitHub can also serve as a built releases repository.
Github tries very hard to make sure users don't migrate elsewhere.
By supporting GitHub (through hosting your code in it) the way it is right now, you will be helping MS to train their editor enhancing features. Bug-testing the free tier of their paid services...
I'm not sure the deal is worth it. I'm much more pro divorcing the private interest from the public good. I'd rather my taxes paid for free software hosting.
Oh, that's socialism/communism/!capitalism hence bad. /s
P.S.: I'm strongly on the same page with you. Corporations are present to make money, and they always try to differentiate them with closed secret sauce, which is very incompatible with Free and Open Source Software.