On Sun, 3 Jun 2018, at 16:46, Paul Davis wrote: > There are alternatives to GH, and I believe there will always be > alternatives to GH. Just as many of us jumped ship when sourceforge jumped > the shark, people will migrate away from GH towards the new alternatives > that show up if and when MS leads it off the cliff. What I think is most interesting about this thread is the common perspective about the company that *currently* runs Github. This isn't a publicly-funded resource threatened with acquisition by a predatory corporation. It's a service operated by a company -- a sometimes shabby, sometimes brilliant American startup -- threatened with acquisition by what is essentially a mature version of the same thing. Is it good that our decentralised version-control systems are centralised by such a company already? Should we not be actively hoping that Microsoft take over this thing and destroy it? If not, then why not? Chris _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
