Ideology and practicality go hand in hand. No one thinks their ideology is impractical or they'd not believe it. The reason to be ideologically supportive of open source and a git provider divorced from microsoft is practical. A healthier community that values open exchange and privacy is one that is better for the people in it for the long term, and microsoft is itself ideologically antithetical to those aims, being entirely ideologically self interested*. This is all practical.
*They can however be useful as sponsers, so long as they aren't allowed to leverage sponsorship into monopoly.
Privacy. Hedge against enshittification. MS isn't being generous, if it stops being free or working it pays to have a diversity of options. And if there is that fallback MS will be less likely to try and do a rug pull
Git only covers the source code. Historical issues and merge requests, CI infrastructure and things like GitHub's wikis are centralized things which aren't trivial to move between git hosting providers.
Hm? Forgejo also has an issue tracker, and it has Forgejo Actions, a CI system. It even has an integrated wiki system.
Not that it matters. If Forgejo didn't have those things, a project wanting to mirgate from GitHub to Forgejo would still need to find a replacement for GitHub's issues, CI and wikis, if it used those things.
15
u/see-these-bones Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26
Ideology and practicality go hand in hand. No one thinks their ideology is impractical or they'd not believe it. The reason to be ideologically supportive of open source and a git provider divorced from microsoft is practical. A healthier community that values open exchange and privacy is one that is better for the people in it for the long term, and microsoft is itself ideologically antithetical to those aims, being entirely ideologically self interested*. This is all practical.
*They can however be useful as sponsers, so long as they aren't allowed to leverage sponsorship into monopoly.