A case for choosing alternatives to GitHub for your open-source works.
Both practical and philosophical.
Our thoughts, creations and relationships online are made possible
because of large platforms based in Silicon Valley. Let's talk about
GitHub. People use it. I mean, that's where everyone else is. Period.
End of story. ... Or is it?!
The first part dives deep into the rocky history of SourceForge and
BitKeeper, which implicitly led to the creation of Git and GitHub, which
in turn came with its own set of problems. How does the past correlate
to the present? (Recommended speed: 0.75x)
The second part talks about the present: GitHub. It is explained how it
makes money by hosting open-source projects for free, and its prevalence
among open-source developers and professionals, as well as its
increasing gamification, vendor lock-in and the real-world impacts it
has on open-source projects. Is it really as popular and reliable as
you'd think?
The third part is about some of the (contrasting) alternatives and
efforts to work around the problems caused by the "GitHub model", and
what they do differently, and why we need something different than a
monoculture. Fossil, Forgejo and SourceHut (as well as very brief
mentions of the Friendly Forge Format, forge federation, hosted
alternatives to github.com, as well as tiny tools like Tor's
Anon-Ticket!) are talked about.
Disclaimer: I am involved with Codeberg and Forgejo as a volunteer; I
may be a little tiny bit biased. Some of the facts I mention were before
I was born, possible signs of peanuts and mild errors - first talk,
therefore I'm allowed to make mistakes. :)