I'm not trusting them. I'm not dependent on them. I can move at any time I want, because I don't use any features that require lock-in. That's my point.
There's a difference between using something and being dependent on it.
Discussion
That's good. You're being smart.
Assuming you're referring to Jack's note, I think that's exactly how he wants people to think.
It's not about abandoning GitHub en masse. Just being aware of the situation and that git is bigger than GitHub, as you already are.
It was in my mind. Won't pretend it wasn't.
I'm not criticizing his point directly either, more refining it. I'm all for benefitting for something that's given free, but as is so often the case, free comes with strings. It's good to be leery of lock-in.
I do see a lot of projects really integrated into github's ecosystem, and that's not good or even nessessary. We have BugZilla, Open project, et al.
Git also, as I pointed out, minimizes the possible damage. Part of what I love about git is keeping a local history. There are large projects out there that are backed up (in a manner of speaking) on tens of thousands of computers all over the world. That's pretty dang cool.
I expect Microsoft to do whatever is good for Microsoft. For now, that's also mostly good for developers, but I agree that it could change at the drop of a hat. At least with Git, we are better prepared than we have been in the past.
I'm pretty much completely with you.
And as you've pointed out, git is inherently decentralised, so you just need to be aware of which features are added by MS to create lock-in and which are native to git.
Avoid the former and you can easily push your local repos elsewhere at will without disruption.