I don't think this has anything to do with the controversy around RMS. GNU has neglected to provide decent development infrastructure for its projects and has only provided them the joke that savannah is. So people are naturally looking elsewhere.
However, in the middle there is GitLab, with a respectable C. In my experience, it's usable and has all the important features that Github also has. And it's much better from ethical standpoints! I can't imagine any point of view from where Github is more acceptable than Gitlab.
This all seems like a win from the FSF's perspective. Their projects are easier to discover and to contribute to, the developer's computing can remain fully free and the FSF does not need to pay for hosting.
Flex being BSD licensed is a slight problem for copyleft, though.
RMS is against "Service as a Software Substitute" https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...
One could argue that GitHub is SaaSS, because eg. issue system encourages lock-in to specific service, instead of communicating via free email client.
I figure if it turns nasty, or is going to disappear, I can take my data to a self-hosted instance.
Code hosting gone, sponsor income gone, forums gone, bug tracking gone. At the same time.
They will have to take care to always respect Microsoft's business interests and conduct codes. It is a much more severe threat to freedom than running all the proprietary code in the world.
I wouldn't be too surprised if one day they say Stallman has to go.
He lives and breathes free software and arguably coined the term. If Microsoft deems Stallman a threat after 30 years of being heckled by him I would be very surprised. Additionally the developer community within Microsoft and outside Microsoft would become militant. A decision like erasing all GNU repos would punish thousands of people other than Stallman.
Additionally, Github's value is derived in part from how many people use it. Lots of people use it because it's trustworthy. When Microsoft took over Github there was a lot of skeptecism about MS$ maintaining impartiality. If they start throwing up red flags by taking down prominent open source repos and messing with Richard Stallman (the literal figurehead of open-source) they would be betraying open-source in general and the reprecussions would be swift. That was everyones biggest fear, and if Microsoft proved that fear true the exodus to other SCM platforms would be instant. Within a week there wouldn't be any worthwhile projects left on Github.
- Can't mark notifications as done
- Can't edit the title or description of an issue or PR
- Can't dismiss banners or most modals/popups
- Can't commit files directly on the web interface
- Can't edit an issue or PR metadata (i.e. labels)
- Can't edit most, maybe almost all, repo settings
It would probably be better if they'd use Sourcehut or maybe GitLab.
What kind of notifications?
> - Can't edit the title or description of an issue or PR
You can if you disable CSS. (Admittedly that's not very convenient…)
> - Can't dismiss banners or most modals/popups
Any examples? This has (almost?) always worked for me.
It having poor noscript support is a shame though.
EDIT: It should be obvious that github being "code google" is not great for freedom. It's brilliant on the part of Microsoft, in the same way that securing a monopoly on OS's 20 years ago was brilliant. With the cloud-backend->web-frontend being our new defacto operating system, Microsoft is set to achieve this once again. Azure and GitHub synergize really well together. At this rate, the default way to deploy open source code will be VS Code -> .NET 5 -> Github -> Azure, and we will be at Microsoft's monopolistic mercies once again, enthralled to the cloud instead of running our own software that we own (even if we don't understand) on our own hardware that we own (even if we don't understand), and maintaining some semblance of ownership over our own computing and communication with one another via these computers.
That's factually wrong : Richard Stallman resigned from the FSF, not from GNU.
The very first paragraph on his personal website reads: "I continue to be the Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project. I do not intend to stop any time soon."
Also, while I share author's annoyance of seeing GNU packages on github (that's what savannah is made for, after all), singling out GNU here seems sensationalism : it could basically be said that "most FOSS projects are bleeding into Microsoft", or probably more reasonably "FOSS projects should consider what it means to be hosted by Github now that Microsoft owns it".
What ridiculous hyperbole. Yeah, a "number of important reasons", yet they list none. I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but it's Github. It was fine to host open source software on them before, but now that they're bought my Microsoft, it's bad? Why? Because we're afraid Microsoft is going to steal our free open source code? I've mitigated some of my own projects to other git sites, like gitlab, just to get more experience and diversify my access, but it makes no sense to abandon Github.
This level of anti-Microsoft hysteria is a little over the top.
You want to know the real reason why GNU is hosting so many of their projects on Github? Because their interface is clean and it's free and the GNU developers want to spend their time writing GNU software, not maintaining websites.
Is the whole contention solved by just moving over to GitLab?
1. Some projects are owned and controlled by the FSF. All contributors have to assign copyright to the FSF, and the FSF makes decisions about appointing maintainers, where the code is hosted, etc. Examples: Emacs, gcc, glibc.
2. A much larger set of projects are not FSF-owned or controlled in any meaningful way. The maintainers (or former maintainers) voluntarily chose to associate with the GNU project, but didn't assign copyright to the FSF, and basically kept their own project governance. Examples: R, GNOME, GIMP.
3. Finally, many projects on the official list are basically abandonware. They got started because someone thought it was important or useful to have an open source clone of some widely used piece of software, but they never got close to feature-complete, were never widely used, and the authors have moved on. Check the most recent releases for most of the software on the list - it's often been 2+ years since there has been any activity.
The projects that have moved to GitHub are all in category #2. The developers and maintainers of those projects don't necessarily share the antagonism towards SaaS platforms that the FSF has historically had, and they've moved to a platform with better tooling and a larger community. A few better-resourced projects that have stronger views on avoiding proprietary SaaS code have set up self-hosted GitLab instances. The projects I follow that have FSF-appointed maintainers have stayed on GNU Savannah, although many have GitHub read-only mirrors.
Obviously that particular advantage is no longer relevant.