I guess it's time to consider ditching GitHub. Everything that are purchased by Microsoft ware destined to be rotten.
they must be migrating it to hyper-v or something. brutal.
It is first now with Codeberg there is a credible alternative. Of course large projects do not have this issue, but for small projects Github delivered a lot if value.
If you blanch at the thought of a one line in a pull request just wait until you see what Sourceforge looked like, release download pages where you had to paying keen attention to what you clicked on because the legit download button was surrounded by banner ads made to look like download buttons but they instead take you to a malware installer. They then doubled down on that by wrapping Windows installers people published with their own Windows installer that would offer to install a variety of things you didn't want before the thing you did.
It's admittedly not really practical for most projects, but it could be for some large ones - Rust, for example.
But, yes, projects like Rust could have selfhosted if they had wanted to.
However I got the distinct feeling the whole stack would not fit as well into an enterprise environment, nor would the tooling around it work well for devs on Windows machines that just want to get commits out there. It's a perfect fit for that kind of project but I don't think it would be a great GitHub replacement for an enterprise shop that doesn't have software as it's core business
I use a self-hosted GitLab instance in a commercial setting (with developers on Linux and Windows) as well. It's a software department of a non-software company. Fairly small. The person or persons in charge of GitLab have set up some pretty nifty time-savers regarding CI and multi-repo changes - I'd prefer a monorepo, but the integration makes it bearable.
These days sourceware.org hosts the Valgrind git repo, buildbot CI and web site. We could also use their bugzilla. There isn't much point migrating as long as KDE can put up with us.
There is no credible alternative, because 3rd party hosting of the canonical repo is a bad idea to start with. By all means use 3rd party hosting for a more public-facing interaction, but its about time that developers understand that they need to host their own canonical repos.
The benefits down the road, when your chosen 3rd party host has been enshittified up the wazoo ... they far outweigh the costs.
I only ask because I already know of good alternatives for FOSS, but it's the private / work projects that keep me tethered to GH for now.
To me, GitHub only makes sense as a social media site for code. If you are publishing to GitHub with no intent to be open in your code, development process, and contributor roster, then I don't see the point of being on GitHub at all.
Because it's not like their issue tracker is particularly good. It's not like their documentation support is particularly good. It's not like their search is particularly good. It's CI/CD system is bonkers. There are so many problems with using GitHub for its own sake that the only reason I can see to be there is for the network effects.
So, with that in mind, why not just setup a cheap VPS somewhere with a bare git repo? It'll be cheaper than GitHub and you don't have to worry about the LLM mind virus taking over management of your VPS and injecting this kind of junk on you.
I now start with local repos first and whatever I deem OSS-useful, I mirror-push from local to Github or anywhere else with forgejo.
Github was never really needed to use git for private projects.
And then if you're still paranoid do a daily backup to like Dropbox or something.
Personally I host forgejo for my private apps and have had no issues with that either.
Uses the same email-based patch workflow as Linux. Takes an hour to learn, and they have helpful guides: https://git-send-email.io/. No JavaScript.
Simple, direct, and I really like the email based workflows.
The serious users leaving will definitely dent profitability. And GitHub being a social network, could start a death spiral.
I should have said "will dent whatever profitability." I'm not sure it exists either. From the outside, it would seem crazy that it wouldn't be profitable with all the Enterprise stuff (and it's not like you can throw 10k engineers at whatever GH is doing).
The top comment of the linked thread ("If Microsoft shares SSL certs with NSA they could do MITM attacks") is something that I find much more likely today than back in 2018.
>Whether they will abuse the trust of having complete and total access to every private repo and all of the code inside or not remains to be seen
>MS is pushing their ads within their own OS more and more, will GitHub get the same treatment[...]?
Funny.
There are a few alternatives, but none have the critical mass of users yet.