The real lock-in in GitHub is not the code, but the stars
ashishb.net
ashishb.net
Github has been the best example of a brilliant UI, presenting a large database of code for easy browsing and consumption, without requiring javascript.
That was/is its killer feature. This is what locks me in.
Github has deteriorated since the takeover, to be sure. I would estimate its noscript usability to have regressed from 95% to maybe 80% today. The Ruby-on-Rails backend services have faltered a bit. Markdown files in the repo tree are no longer auto-converted by the server into html, but the main readme still works.
Have you ever visited a Gitlab project with javascript turned off? Worthless!
The real GitHub lock in has never been the code, that’s the fungible part. It’s the issues and discussions and everything else not included in a git clone.
For example, how would you decide which FOSS vector database to use? Do you completely ignore GitHub Stars in the process?
Things like good documentation, good performance, good DX, and an active user community would be the deciding factors for me. One repo having more stars than another wouldn’t even factor into it.
Stars can be faked and botted. It is not the lock in.
The lock in is the distribution of GitHub, (issues, outside contributions, sponsors, etc)
Exactly!