zlacker

I think it's worth pointing out that GH was always on this path, to the point where it's actually kind of hard to explain the difference between git and GitHub to fairly technical people.

It's also worth pointing out that it doesn't have to come from malicious intentions.

>>anders+(OP)
It's tough to say that the urge to replace free software and open collaboration protocols with proprietary, closed source pay-to-play tools that the user isn't in control of (the whole GitHub SaaS model) isn't "malicious intentions".

It's replacing an open, free (in both senses), decentralized system with a closed, for-profit, centralized one that expressly benefits a single organization at the expense of everyone else in the ecosystem.

This is not to say that GitHub isn't a benefit over emailing patches around; just that it's probably also worth mentioning that Linus et al have not migrated to this shiny new (centralized) system for the largest collaborative development effort in the history of the world, and, indeed, git itself was developed specifically to avoid a hard dependency on a single, centralized point.

>>sneak+9n
That's kind of my point: doing something to protect the best interests of your company isn't inherently malicious. Sure, altruism has benefits, but they're much harder to measure than the bottom line.

Also, FWIW I think we need to move away from GitHub.