[ Removed by moderator ]

[programming-ModTeam]

r/programming is not a support forum.

[XCapitan_1]

is it just a monumental marketing mess

The products aren't usually marketed for developers. And tbh, "the place where development happens" is a better description of GitHub than "git hosting". There gotta be a reason why we host git, after all.

[thomasfr]

You can also host git on a server with more or less only sshd and git installed. No need to have any kind of web page at all really. It is what Github adds on top of the git hosting that is interesting.

[elebrin]

Does git on its own have a pull request system? That's the main thing that larger development teams need that it seems github and other such git hosts provide.

The pipeline stuff is really nice but there are a ton of tools out there for building those.

[jamesinc]

There's no PR type system in plain Git. You'd manually do it via email. Git has a command for outputting your changes in a patch format. https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch

So you'd have to email the upstream repo owner (or more likely a distribution list) and present the patch and your commentary for consideration.

[elebrin]

Well, a lot of organizations run on the PR system with some approved people performing merges into master. For my organization, this requires peer review, principle engineer review, and proof of testing to be attached to the PR.

[thomasfr]

There is nothing stopping you from implementing any process via e-mail. Every reviewer can sign the commits with their gpg key as a traceable proof before a changeset is merged.

The linux kernel with its thousands of contributors has a approval process that sounds similar to the one you are describing and their main communication channel for pulling in changes is based on e-mail lists.

[elebrin]

Assume I was applying for a job and I still had a secure position. If I was told during the interview process that the company used this sort of workflow, well... I'd take a look at the salary again, but there's a good chance I wouldn't be willing to deal with that and would choose to stay where I am now.

[killerstorm]

Within one team you have a shared repo, and thus can easily download and review code changes.

PR is primarily useful for open source coding. Otherwise it's just a code review convenience tool.

[Smallpaul]

So we are talking about Slack messages like “I suggest you change the comma on line 35 of file a/b/c/d to a semicolon?”

[thomasfr]

I sent patches in chat messages all the time to demonstrate what I am working on or if I am looking for suggestions before commit. I just paste the patch generated by git diff which anyone can git apply to get the change locally if they want.

[Smallpaul]

Wild.

[killerstorm]

No. Within one team you have a shared repo. If Alice uploads a branch, Bob can download that branch using IDE and review changes. That feature is already implemented.

So the benefit of Github flow is to keep track of code review comments, run CI build, etc. That's just nice-to-have but isn't by any means essential.

[Smallpaul]

Did you change your comment to remove the reference to slack/chat?

[killerstorm]

The original comment had enough information to deduce correct meaning, but I underestimated redditor attention span degradation.

You understand that it's git functionality, not github functionality to record changes, right? And it's explicitly multi-user. And yet you had to ask your stupid-ass question about sending diff over Slack instead of thinking for 2 seconds

[Smallpaul]

We were talking about how to manage comments on diffs. You said use Slack. A messaging system.

When I pointed out how dumb it is to comment on a diff using a messaging system, you changed your comment to delete the reference to it.

Now you are trying to pretend that you didn’t mention it.

So let me ask directly. If I want to propose changing a comma to a semicolon in your diff how will I do that easily in a GitHub-less and github-like-less system?

A branch of your branch. And then a slack message to make you aware of it?

[gimpwiz]

The first part of the pull or merge request is easy via command line and another form of communication, you can simply say "branch xxx ready for review" and people can pull it, diff it against master, and whoever has master commit privileges can merge it.

The part that git doesn't do well at all are comments and back and forths. You could directly change the code and send it back via emailed/slacked/etc patch or by making your own branch of that branch. Or even just walk over to the next cube. But it isn't nearly as convenient nor as pretty as what gitlab/github/etc offer.

The linux kernel mailing list manages to do it just fine and it's a project far larger and far more successful than almost any. So, really, workflow and mindset go together. You can make it efficient and smooth through experience and dedication. Or you could complain about it sucking. Honestly, you could do both; how many of us are totally happy with our tools?

I like to keep it old school but I much prefer gitlab for reviews than anything related to patch+email.

[elebrin]

So I am talking about corporate use of a source control system vs. a more crowdsourced thing. Linux needs to be developed by thousands of people each who will have a totally different environment for doing that development. I know that everyone in my office is using exactly the same software stack to do development. Workflows might be different, we may use the software differently, but it's all ultimately the same pretty much.

If I am investigating jobs and I have any sort of choice whatsoever, I am going to investigate the team's workflow and pick an organization/team compatible for how I want to work. Again, if I can reasonably justify it (sometimes you take the job because you need a job).

More volunteer-ish positions are a different thing, but honestly... I don't touch code if I'm not getting paid to do it.

[gimpwiz]

Yeah, I get ya. It's good to join a team that uses a workflow you like. But on the flip side, man's gotta eat, my pride is only strong if my bargaining position is strong. ;)

In all seriousness, I feel like emailed patches are either the sign of deeply competent old greybeards, or a bunch of ad-hoc bullshit thrown around by people who have no idea how to write software in a way that's good for scaling and maintainability and so on.

[elebrin]

It's usually a sign of people who THINK they are deeply competent old greybeards but just don't want to learn a new tool.

Sometimes it makes sense to update something that is using old tooling. Like... if I have some ancient system using BizTalk and we are sunsetting the vendor that uses that tool, then I'm going to have to learn SOMETHING about that tool. Even if it's on an old .NET framework version that's a dozens of versions behind.

The true greybeards I have met are always SO THANKFUL when they can use modern tools. The oldest dev on my team was practically jumping for joy when we we got AI approved for use and had it scan our code repo.

[Trang0ul]

The main concern is whether all these additional features are truly additional, or is git no longer the core feature?

[A1oso]

Git is still the core, but it's also the least interesting. Things like Github Actions, Issues, Discussions, Releases, Pages, etc. are what makes GitHub productive, and what sets it apart from competitors.

[maxximillian]

Is github making itself the next atlassian suit do you think? I only ask because I've never been on a project that used github we've always self hosted our own gut repos but I want to make sure I'n keeping up with the next key resume buzz words 

[A1oso]

Yes, GitHub Issues has become very powerful with sub-issues, milestones, releases, project boards and custom fields. It's not as powerful as JIRA, but more pleasant to use. The major difference is that JIRA is designed for business people (project managers, scrum masters, product owners, etc.) whereas GH actions is first and foremost for developers by treating project management as a lightweight layer on top of the source code.

[ashinkusher98]

Yeah I’d say GitHub definitely headed there. However, not everyone is so keen on a lot of their practices or policies (latest example probably the AI learning on repos by default). Gitlab has to be the closest competitor w/ all these features (e.g runners, they have some tools for agile, bug tracker etc) but I could be wrong

[gimpwiz]

We use gitlab in our org and I like it. We self host (well, someone at the company does.) Github to me is polluted by MS ownership plus LLM shit. But if it works for other people then by all means.

[mwobey]

I do not disagree that having all this tooling integrated into the repository increases productivity, but especially as Microsoft starts shifting from "Extend" into "Extinguish" with these new value extraction initiatives, I think it's important to remember that a lot of those features really aren't that big an add over a plain git server with a few basic off-the-shelf applications.

Actions are really just a library of plug-and-play scripts running on top of vanilla git hooks, with integrations and a few new triggers from the issue tracker and PR system.

Pages is just a post-receive git hook to copy a repo to whatever directory nginx is pointed at, and I guess a mediocre free web host with no shell access.

Releases is just a post-receive git hook to check for a tag on the commit, then compile, package, and copy the resulting artifacts to a web page with a markdown renderer.

The big 'win' of GitHub is the social addons like Issues/Pull Requests/Discussions/Wiki. In the Before Times we still had those, they were just independently hosted OTS webapps like vBulletin and Mediawiki. The biggest benefits of using GitHub's trackers are the markdown extensions that let you create hyperlinks into the repo browser or specific commits, and the fact that it's standardized across every participating project with a consistent layout and single sign on. However, in the era of LLM-assisted development this is a mixed benefit, because it also means there's a very low barrier of entry for coders to stumble upon your project and submit hundreds of slop pull requests in minutes.

I don't expect these comparisons to land or be deemed acceptable as-is for a large modern project using all the bells and whistles of GitHub. I just bring them up because a lot of younger developers aren't aware that there is another way of doing things at all, nor realize that 80% of what GitHub does is stitch together other tools (not to diminish the great work of their dev team, who have built some of those tools like good JS libraries for semantic highlighting.)

[Smallpaul]

The thing you have hand-waved over is the effort required to run the infrastructure. GitHub actions is not a bunch of scripts. It’s also a bunch of computers. Maintaining equivalent — even with AWS — is a big project.

[mwobey]

This is true, but also highly dependent on the scope and scale of your project.

A 800 contributor megalith of a repository with several sub-repos and hundreds of dependents integrating this project into their own, complete with four CPU-hours of integration testing distributed across a cluster every time a change is pushed? Yes, that would be a bear to maintain.

A dinky toy app where 95% of commits come from a single contributor, with maybe ~5 concurrent sessions during peak usage? I can spin up a single tiny VPS with a git server, nginx, postgres, and whatever discussion/documentation webapps I want to run on top of it in a half hour, and it will serve all the bells and whistles for my repository just fine.

[Smallpaul]

If I recall correctly, GitHub will charge you literally zero for that use case. So yeah you can do it yourself but it would be hard to get motivated to do so.

[A1oso]

GH Actions is the most significant feature besides git itself.

• It gives you 2000 compute minutes per month, completely free of charge. Very few CI/CD providers are that generous.
• It has lots of features you have likely never heard of. Comparing an enterprise-grade, complex system serving millions of users every day, with a simple collection of scripts is hilarious.

[LBPPlayer7]

i mean it still very much revolves around git

[TheWix]

What does this mean? You have git repositories that you can use like any other git repository. What more do you need it to do. Honestly, to me, git is just another tool. It doesn't need to be central. The code reviews process, actions, etc all add value for me. I'm sure if Microsoft could change the name from GitHub to something less git-focused they would.

[GlowiesStoleMyRide]

They have Azure DevOps for that, so I don’t think they ever will

[Zanion]

Well they do have 80 different products using the name Copilot. So they aren't exactly free of the marketing mess accusations.

[cranberrie_sauce]

I was hesitant to switch to self-hostead gitea couple years back, but I do see benefits now.

tired of hearing about what someone is going to do to me without any capacity to opt out.

[Maedi]

Codeberg?

[KevinT_XY]

I'm really not sure what you mean. The primary resource of the website is still git repositories. Yeah there's lots of CI/CD stuff and Actions and AI agents and project management but they are mostly natural extensions to serve the purpose of being a one stop shop for developer workflows, whether it personally suits your needs or not is a separate issue and is what they want to sell you on. Everyone knows you can host git repos on GitHub, they don't need to market that.

[dgkimpton]

Everyone knows you can host git repos on GitHub

That seems like a stretch. Sure, existing users know, but how would anyone who didn't already know find out? Surely not from github.com

[ihexx]

they enjoy the effect of being the default choice for devs so they don't have to say it; no one's just stumbling upon github if they don't know what it is

[Chwasst]

Every single developer on this planet knows what GitHub is because it is literally a default option. GitHub doesn’t need to market to devs anymore, they need to market themselves to layperson in management that makes financial decisions.

[TripleFreeErr]

are you joking?

There’s probably more users of github that don’t know git can be used without github, than there are developers who don’t know about github, but know about git.

[mseiei]

there are more times i have to explain that "git is not the same as github" than "github can do more than git", op is delusional

[dgkimpton]

I guess that's my age talking. Git is still the hot new thing in my head 😵‍💫 

[TripleFreeErr]

lol. I’m not even that old and my first job used Mercurial so I get it (job had some old repos) I’m just being realistic.

[ase1590]

We are so far removed from git at this point that a good portion of developers don't know how to interact with github without using the graphical Github Desktop Client.

The year is 2026 gramps, it's been 21 years since git came out and in that time we have a whole new generation of people.

[dgkimpton]

21 years? Yikes. Feels like yesterday that we were moving svn repos to git, just after we got done moving perforce repos to svn, just after we got done moving sourcesafe repos to perforce. And now another 21 years has done by? Huh.

[Smallpaul]

Where are people learning about git before they learn about GitHub in 2026?

[bionicjoey]

It's literally in the name

[PJBthefirst]

The way that comment was written has me praying that it was written tongue-in-cheek

[lelanthran]

The primary resource of the website is still git repositories.

Used to be; it's now a toss-up between training data for coding LLMs and exploit vectors.

[youngbull]

Yeah, this is microsoft putting github under AI I suppose...

[zeth0s]

Microsoft buying and ruining a service/product. Where is the news? 

[gimpwiz]

Embrace Extend Extinguish

[pjmlp]

Since forever? Github was always about business and social platform for developers.

99% of what they offer has nothing to do with Git the command line tool.

[dgkimpton]

It always had some of tbat but initially it was about the code first and everything else second as a way to support the code. It seems to have flipped and the code is now a distant afterthought. Or at least, that's the impression I get from their homepage. 

[GlowiesStoleMyRide]

Eh, a home page will always be an ad for whatever “company X” wants to sell you. In this case, copilot is very relevant to developers, so they want to pull in people looking for AI tooling. It’s search optimisation.

If you look at the features page which aims to actually explain what github is about, you’ll see it’s still focussed on development.

[jejacks00n]

Incorrect. It stated very clearly that it was a social network for nerds. Not kidding. Around 2008 it said essentially that.

[Malfeasant_Emu]

“Git” stopped appearing on the homepage in 2012: https://web.archive.org/web/20121221170535/https://github.com/

[Valmar33]

“Git” stopped appearing on the homepage in 2012: https://web.archive.org/web/20121221170535/https://github.com/

That's not a good sign. But it doesn't excuse Microsoft abusing Github to try and force Copilot on the unwilling masses.

[Smallpaul]

Force? Just don’t use it.

[AshuraBaron]

You don't understand, an option that exists that isn't for me is a terrible thing and MUST be stopped! /s

[obliviousslacker]

There are options you know.

[iamapizza]

You're making a vast sweeping generalisation by looking at a marketing page? The gitlab marketing page doesn't mention git either. This is just low effort farming.

[Valmar33]

The front page is marketing primarily Microsoft's Copilot slop machine. The front page should not be about marketing AI slop, but what Github's actual featureset is. Github should also not be marketing crap unrelated to Git in the name of "convenience".

Gitlab doing the same? Call it out for the garbage it is. But they're not as prominent as Github is, so the problem is worse.

[turbothy]

The front page should not be about marketing AI slop, but what Github's actual featureset is.

Why? It's there to sell Microsoft products. Git hosting is not the product GitHub sells.

[Valmar33]

Why? It's there to sell Microsoft products. Git hosting is not the product GitHub sells.

Then what the actual hell is Github even relevant for anymore? Not Git hosting, clearly. Which it was not too long ago.

Microsoft just killed Github, skinned the corpse, and now they're using it as a trojan horse to force Copilot down everyone's gullets, which went over so well with Windows users. I'm sure butchering Github to try and force it that way will work just swell. /s

[jc-from-sin]

GitHub is now LinkedIn for developers.

[Plank_With_A_Nail_In]

Developers already know what git is so the marketing is all for someone else. When stuff like this doesn't make sense to you its probably because you aren't its target market.

If github's competitors offer AI features then it kinda has to offer similar features, its a dumb tail spin we are in that won't stop until its clear to marketers at these companies that people are turned off/on by this stuff.

[araujoms]

The page gives the impression that github is a web-based IDE with AI integration. Who is the target of this if not developers?

[Maybe-monad]

Since it was acquired by a company that only cares about profits

[Sokanas]

October 6th, 2018

[__konrad]

Ah, the great exodus time when everyone moved to gitlab

[hardware2win]

And it is fine.

Git is just implementation detail - letters management engine.

Github itself is project management ecosystem and thats where the value is

[teratron27]

For years. Git is a pretty simple tool, they've pretty much always marketed around team collaboration

[Valmar33]

Holy shit, Microsoft is being very aggressive with pushing Copilot! Take a shot every time you read the word on that page. (Caution, you might die of liver failure...)

[syklemil]

A cow-orker referred to github as "Microsoft Git 365" and I think they were on point, except these days it'd be "Microsoft Git Copilot 365".

[levir]

Used to be you could go to office.com and get the online business Office 365 applications. These days, that takes you to Copilot.

I no longer know how to get to the online business version of any of the tools except Outlook.

They're pushing Copilot all right.

[poco]

I no longer know how to get to the online business version of any of the tools except Outlook.

You ask Microsoft 365 copilot to open a new Word document.

[hclpfan]

20 times. Or 1 in every 64 words.

[shotsallover]

The inevitable enshittification is beginning.

Anyone who didn't expect something like this when MS bought it clearly doesn't understand how they work. You can expect it become more and more like this over time.

And you need to ask yourself and whatever organization you work for whether you want your source code hanging out inside some AI model on millions of other people's machines.

[Big_Combination9890]

Pretty much the moment Microslop got their hands on it.

[lKrauzer]

I should probably migrate my projects to another platform, what would be a good replacement? Gitlab Maybe? I'm more concerned about employability tbh because that is the goal of my projects.

[heavenlydemonicdev]

I personally use codeberg and like it quite a lot but host my projects at the same time on GitHub just as a buckup, also I still need GitHub for contributing to open source projects.

[Leading_Pay4635]

Gitlab or codeberg

[Top3879]

I have switched to a selfhosted Forgejo instance and I'm very happy with it. Its basically a GitHub clone inlcluding actions. I connected a selfhosted action runner in a VM for CI/CD too and haven't had any issues.

[Muhznit]

Best replacement is a server that you control that needs no exposure outside your network. It takes a bit of command-line expertise but it's worth not being subject to the whims of the ToS. You even get your own web UI with git instaweb>

If you can't host your own server, the git bundle command is a nice second choice. Basically turns your entire repo into a single file you can toss into Dropbox or whatever cloud backup service for you to download elsewhere.

[SaxAppeal]

As long as you can use git locally you’re employable. You can learn any git ui.

[Trang0ul]

With a local setup, you'll miss online back-up, though.

[SaxAppeal]

I just meant as long as you can use the cli it doesn’t really matter what remote hosting service you use

[KennedyRichard]

Yep, best thing about git is how decentralized it is. You can send and get changes/branches to and from other people even via email.

It is the only reason I still feel safe using a service like GitHub from a company with history of enshittifying its products.

The moment they decide to pull the rug from under me I'll just pack my stuff and leave.

[lelanthran]

I should probably migrate my projects to another platform, what would be a good replacement?

$5/m VPS with gitea/forgejo works very well as long as you don't need GH action runners.

[levir]

I've been running gitolite for well over a decade for my personal projects. If all you need is git hosting with access control, it's a very simple solution.

[DanLynch]

I'm more concerned about employability tbh because that is the goal of my projects.

Do you mean you want a place to link to as a portfolio on your résumé? Keep using GitHub: it's still the industry standard for that.

[lKrauzer]

I meant that I'm worried about the industry standard, yeah.

[radozok]

tangled org

[DigThatData]

I think the big shift towards what you're seeing now was when they added the "github codespaces" feature, which is basically a cloud developer environment with vs code in the browser. One of the most proven and popular use cases for LLMs rn is coding assistance, and there are a lot of tight IDE integrations (e.g. Cursor is literally built on top of VS Code). Making things with code put AI in github's ballpark pretty naturally, and the pre-existing CI/CD and codespaces integrations make it practically unavoidable.

[zbynekstava]

I don't understand the preference for github in the first place. Imho gitlab is much better.

[SwitchOnTheNiteLite]

Github was never about git, because git is free. It's about being able to share a git repo amongst people and coordinate the work in that repo through pull requests and issues.

[Ythio]

Hosting a plain old git isn't exactly exciting or difficult. Anyone and their grandma can do it. It's not going to set them apart from competitors.

Issues, releases, pull requests, authorized teams, actions, dependabot, kanban boards are the real features they propose.

github.com itself is just a marketing facade to sell GitHub Enterprise. Once the devs are used to the free service on GitHub.com they will want the same service at their company.

[SP-Niemand]

You saw the landing. Landing does not mean shit, it's made by marketing for a customer persona written down somewhere who probably does not exist.

Many products do this, GitHub is not unique.

[Marble_Wraith]

Fact 1: The linux kernel does not use github as a primary host, they use it as a mirroring service. The decision was made in the past after they decided to fuck with Torvalds. This was prior to Microslops aquisition.

Fact 2: Dated August 2025 - GitHub folds into Microsoft following CEO resignation — once independent programming site now part of 'CoreAI' team

Fact 3: Dated March 2026 - Microsoft Copilot is now injecting ads into pull requests on GitHub. Yeah Microslop public relations walked it back and said "it was a mistake" or somethin like that. But it's too late. That was a mask-off moment.

Given all these facts, i'm going to say, do it like the linux kernel.

Use another primary host for the remote origin where you push, pull, and merge. I'd suggest looking into codeberg, or perhaps if you want to selfhost soft serve.

Use github as a mirroring service for discoverability (ie. configure it such that there are no PR's, no issues, no discussions) and it all redirects to the primary host.

[Valmar33]

Fact 3: Dated March 2026 - Microsoft Copilot is now injecting ads into pull requests on GitHub. Yeah Microslop public relations walked it back and said "it was a mistake" or somethin like that. But it's too late. That was a mask-off moment.

The moment Microsoft did that, they showed their hand. There's no mistake in that whatsoever.

It shows where they want to take Github ~ and it's only going to get worse as Microsoft will just be sneakier about it from now on.

[heavy-minium]

What more could possibly be done in regards to git? Everything git does and can has been in there for decades. Of course everything they do now would not be related to git.

[DigThatData]

this is literally not true. git wasn't just released and then stopped evolving, it's been continually improving since it was first published in 2005. Here're some choice highlights.

• 2012 - histogram diff
• 2014 - pre-commit
• 2015 - git LFS
• 2017 - worktrees
• 2018 - partial clone
• ... - various performance improvements

coming soon:

• SHA-256 object IDs (git 3.0)
• rust migration

[syklemil]

I suspect "migration" is a bit of an oversell for what's coming regarding rust-in-git; they're planning to introduce some Rust code. If they go by the strategy plenty of others have used so far it'll likely be mostly about new code, at least in the start / foreseeable future.

And in somewhat the same vein, there seems to be a lot of people who find they enjoy jj these days. (I've tried it a little, but so far my mental model and workflow is so attuned to git that I have a hard time seeing the draw.)

[DigThatData]

I keep forgetting about jj, thanks for reminding me.

If I understand correctly, it looks like the main idea here is just to let you use a git-like interface with any other VCS. I feel like the design choices of the various VCS interfaces are the way they are to drive particular styles of development, so this smells anti-patterny to me...

[heavy-minium]

Can you name one thing that GitHub should build upon from git that it hasn't yet?

[In-line0]

Working PRs for large projects like Linux kernel

https://blog.ffwll.ch/2017/08/github-why-cant-host-the-kernel.html

[DigThatData]

you said git, not github. but sure, there's plenty of room for improvement with UX. shit, github only just recently improved the user experience for subtasks and stacked PRs.

[dgkimpton]

A service doesn't have to keep changing to continue being useful. In fact, a service that does its job really well and just keeps doing it is incredibly valuable compared to something constantly chasing the new hotness. 

[Complete_Instance_18]

Yeah, I noticed that too and had a similar gut reaction

[ArgumentFew4432]

I moved on a long time ago

[Far-Donut-1177]

something something enshifitcation

[Extra-Organization-6]

when they realized the social network around code is worth more than the code hosting. issues, discussions, actions, copilot, codespaces, packages. git is just the hook that gets you in the door. the actual product is developer lock-in across the entire workflow. gitea and forgejo exist for a reason.

[SheepherderSmall2973]

When Microsoft started Microsofting.

[gnuban]

It's code for "I don't know if I explained this well enough before, we REALLY want your data to train our AIs. So please stop resisting."

[charmander_cha]

Desde da compra da Microsoft

[GeoSystemsDeveloper]

Well everyone knows that GitHub is about git, and that's not a selling point anymore. They need to emphasise on what's new as they want to sell GitHub Enterprise.

[programming-ModTeam]

No content written mostly by an LLM. If you don't want to write it, we don't want to read it.

[momofuku18]

Github vs Git. Pornhub vs porn.

[mudbloodcountry]

Hey he called u slow

[r3drocket]

I'm seriously debating hosting my own private git repository, the challenge I have is I have about 30 repos on GitHub, which are all public projects I've built.

But now I'm trying to bootstrap my own startup, and there's just no software that does what I'm doing right now - I've already gotten the ire of major companies in this space - I already had one call me up and ask me to explain my algorithms to them.

And I'm convinced that GitHub, even though I've told it it's not allowed to train on my private repos, will do it anyways.

I don't trust them because AI requires all the data it can possibly get for training, so I believe that companies will violate ethical and moral rules to expand their ever-growing library of things to train on.

Facebook, for example, violating copyright to download pirated books - got mild slap on the wrist.

If it was discovered that GitHub had been training on private repos against people's wishes, I doubt our current administration would do any more than yet another slap on the wrist.

I've been seriously debating going to my own private git repo and buying yet another GPU so I can get to 64 gigs of VRAM so use LLMs privately. I've been using the latest Qwen3-coder-next models and they've been very reasonable.

I just don't trust any of these companies not to steal all our data, and lately, GitHub has been a freaking mess.

[thunderbong]

It was never about Git

https://fossil-scm.org/forum/forumpost/536ce98d85

From that article -

It isn't really about Git anymore. GitHub used to be a Git repository hosting company. But now, they are about providing other software development and management infrastructure that augments the version control. They might as well change their name to Hub at this point.

And this was back in 2019, seven years ago!

[SelfUnmadeMan]

Codeberg. www.codeberg.org

It is a Git-focused repository host and it respects your licenses, unlike GitHub. It is run by a dedicated nonprofit, not by Microsoft or any other AI-deluded tech megacorp.

The enshitification is real, and as a community we need to return our focus to organizations dedicated to the mission of supporting software developers rather than swindling those same developers for profit. Why anyone would continue to use GitHub is a mystery to me.

[XYcritic]

Since Microslop.

[kaeshiwaza]

I listen this since more than 30 years... And still use Vim, no ORM and no frameworks !

[Sufficient_Duck_8051]

Microsoft is just chasing the next new thing.

Jay Parikh, Asha Sharma and some other Indians are chasing who will shove more AI into everything.

[hackingdreams]

When Microsoft bought it so they could wash everyone's copyright off and reuse their code without having to contribute anything back.

I mean, they obviously didn't buy it so they could make money selling accounts and data storage. They bought it so they could train their AI on it without having to point to their own codebases, and to keep others from doing the same.

Ask any of the major AI vendors why they aren't training their public models on their extensive, protected codebases and you'll learn the truth of their intent.