why do you dislike Github ?

[chrizilla]

(I guess there is no PM function in github, so I'm writing here.)

"GitHub. I host my own projects elsewhere and so should you"

why ?

[nortti0]

Hi,
My reasoning is essentially fourfold:

1. Github is a closed platform
2. Github's near-monopoly is bad for open source more generally
3. Github enforces a workflow I do not like for contribution (this is admittedly a very subjective opinion)
4. Github works with ICE

When I say Github is a closed platform, I mean this both in the sense that it is proprietary software that you cannot self-host, but also more generally in the sense of it being a data silo. While it is trivial to copy a git repository off from Github, the same is not true for pull requests, issues, wikis, CI, etc. which Github really wants you to use. This means that Github has a large degree of lock-in, larger than even other git forges like Gitlab, as it is very hard to move your project elsewhere if you're using Github as you're meant to.

Engaging with projects on Github also requires a Github account, though this is more of a problem with git forges in general than Github in specific. See Sourcehut for an exception to this.

Github has a near-monopoly in the git forge market. Github is also a corporation whose goal is increased profit, which they can get through paid accounts and commercial contracts. If there was a more competitive field of git forges, Github (and other forges) could increase the value proposition of their platforms by making it easy to interoperate between different forges and hosts, as that would decrease the friction of being an active contributor of several projects.

Instead, in the current near-monopoly Github has almost nothing to gain from allowing users of gitlab.com to open issues or pull requests on github.com, and instead the best course of action for them for increasing the amount of usage of their platform is to prevent exactly that. This way people are forced to have Github accounts, and since they already have them, they are more likely to create their repositories on Github, accelerating the growth.

Github's near-monopoly also makes it a single point of failure. Git was designed as a distributed source control system in large part to avoid open source projects needing any central server to be online and reachable for development and contribution. While using git with Github retains the ability to develop by yourself without Github access (well, usually¹), your contribution options are entirely closed off if Github is offline or blocked in your country.

Github has a very specific workflow for contribution that I imagine works well for projects that are based heavily on merge commits and have a stable set of contributors. However, for one-off fixes the workflow is very heavy, requiring you to fork the repo and create new branch for every single change you want to submit a pull request.

Contrast this with the way I contribute to weltschmerz: I get the latest code from upstream (git fetch && git rebase origin/master in my case, though if you keep your developments in your own branch you can just use git pull), make my changes splitting it logically between commits, and then use git send-email to send the maintainer a set of patches. If I want to link some commits together I can tell git send-email (or git format-patch for higher level of control) to do so. While I am not saying that patch-based workflow is necessarily better than pull request based one, the fact remains that Github does not allow me to use patch-based workflow, even for my own projects.

As a side note, using patch-based workflow is how Sourcehut avoids requiring an account to participate. If you are interested in hearing more about patch-based workflow, I can recommend git-send-email.io for a starting point.

Github also works with ICE, an arm of the US government formed after 9/11 as part of their "war on terror" and expanding surveillance and control, which is complicit in human rights abuses. While it is not unexpected for private companies to work against their stated ethics if they are offered enough money, the ICE contract Github has doesn't even get Github all that much money. This tells that Github cares more about sucking up to repressive government organizations than their stated ethics, which to me is already reason enough to distrust their ability to make decisions that benefit the open source community. Your mileage may vary, however.

To summarize:

1. Github is a closed source and it is hard to move away from, making it a data silo like the likes of Facebook – something that in my opinion should be seen as antithetical to open source.
2. Github's near-monopoly position gives them incentive to maintain a closed platform, and introduces a single point of failure for a large amount of open source software in the world.
3. Github requires a workflow that makes it harder to be a one-off contributor to projects, even if the project leader would want another kind of workflow.
4. Github's stated ethics are very cheap, and there is no reason to think they would not sell out open source community if given lucrative enough deal.

If you want some clarifications or discuss this further otherwise, please do not hesitate to comment.

¹ There are language-specific package managers that do not bother to host packages by themselves, instead relying on Github to host them. However, I cannot really fault Github for this.

[chrizilla]

Many thanks for this interesting read!

You make very good arguments. Programming-wise I am not knowledgeable enough to make for a good partner of discussion, but for what it's worth, I agree with your view.

But in case you are interested, I'll share with you my experience on gitlab, which has been awful. I have been a contributor to a gitlab project for some time. Then one day, I participated in a discussion about some gitlab function in a gitlab/gitlab issue. Out of the blue, my account was blocked. I wrote to the gitlab support team and even offered my apologies (although I did nothing wrong), but to no avail. They decided to keep my account blocked. I replied that if their goal is to keep me off gitlab, they fail, because I can open a new account in no time. They'll only succeed in blocking this specific username. What is the use of that?

I forwared to them a message from the maintainer of the project, I was heavily contributing to, in which he stated that his project depends on me and my contributions and he begged to reinstate my account. Again, they didn't care and kept my account blocked.

When I asked, what I had done wrong, they pointed to the abovmentioned gitlab discussion and the worst they could come up with is that I said to someone there: "You seem unable to take any criticism." Seriously!? This was my honest opinion and I got blocked for expressing it. I mean, I would have understood if I had used fould language, swear words, etc. ... but this ??

I have been blocked for 3 years now.
A few days ago, I contacted them again with a request to reopen my account. Let's see what they'll come up with now.

I host my own projects elsewhere and so should you.

This begs the question, where you host your projects ?

I particularly agree with you on github/ICE/911.
How do you know? Do you have any links with background information for me ?

[nortti0]

But in case you are interested, I'll share with you my experience on gitlab, which has been awful. […]

That does seem awful based on what you've said. I myself have not had problems with GitLab, but I do not discount the possibility.

This begs the question, where you host your projects ?

My friend group has a shared server that we run Gitea on. I think self-hosting, if you are able to do so, is probably the best solution, but I understand it is a lot of additional complexity.

I am not familiar enough with the Git forge landscape to suggest any of them outside of GitLab.

How do you know? Do you have any links with background information for me ?

I think this Los Angeles Times article is a good overview of the situation.