← Back to context

Comment by Normal_gaussian

18 days ago

The project benefits from the visibilityband community of GitHub and GitHub is completely replaceable with European hosted or self-hostable options should something untoward happen.

I think you and other responders are missing the point. Yes GitHub gives visibility to the project and is easily replaceable. But putting projects on GitHub gives visibility to GitHub and reenforces the network effect and Microsoft leadership, making it harder for European alternative to emerge.

  • I'm sure they would use a European provider if it was only a minor inconvenience to them; but there is no EU-github nearly done and it doesn't make sense to hamstring this project waiting on it. If this project is successful it will help to justify funding more EU sovereign projects, which will likely include GitHub replacements.

But they still chose an American company, github, lol ironic

  • There's nothing ironic, as since the GP said there is no risk associated with GitHub. Git fundamentally prevents vendor lock-in and tampering, and the project is open, so the US have no leverage and pose no threat at all here.

    • its not about leverage or threat, same as the office products, the french owned their docs at the end of the day, i thought it was about sovereignty and using french alternatives?

      2 replies →

  • With that argument we are discussing this on...errr US - the organization that perhaps grew those companies.

    The word is not ironic it is pragmatic.

  • It's the code that's hosted on GitHub, not the documents. Easier to move, easier to negotiate a move. You get visibility and easy distribution until they feel the need to bail.