I don't get how a developer who's income directly depends on the code which they are writing or in general thinks that their project has value can be too cheap to pay a few little $ for an excellent, RELIABLE and FAST git source control, which without doubt is GitHub and certainly NOT GitLab.
I mean as a developer your code repositories are the single most important thing where you want to sleep well (and your production infrastructure). Rather save money on shitty cinema tickets, Starbucks milkshakes (the shit they produce cannot be called coffee) or save some money on some shitty Apple adapters, but please get yourself a GitHub subscription.
It's not clear if hosting your own Gitlab instance (they are not using Gitlab's servers, but their own) is cheaper than a Github's subscription. It's more a question about owning your own infrastructure rather than cutting costs. Also, as open source developers they probably are not comfortable with depending on a privative software.
That said, given the option I would rather use Phabricator (as I currently do).
> not comfortable with depending on a privative software
I am sick of hearing this argument. What does that even mean? How is the fact that GitHub doesn't publish their internal code making it's usage "uncomfortable"? Do you think that if they opt to use GitLab and GitLab goes down (and they will because they are shit) that they will adopt GitLab's source code afterwards to continue the project because they rely on it? No way... they will just move their git stuff to a different provider, done. So what's the worry about a private hoster? Git itself is open source which is probably what matters more.
GitHub has other ethical issues aside from the server code being proprietary.
However, you're missing the point. Using proprietary software for hosting means that contributors are forced to use the same software (thus giving up their freedom). Not to mention it would promote proprietary software over free software. Neither is acceptable for the GNU project.
Why are people surprised that the GNU project prioritises freedom over all other factors? That was sort of the whole point of the project in the first place, and compromising on that would mean that modern GNU/Linux wouldn't exist.
I think you are missing the point, because your argumentation about the GNU project doesn't really apply/make sense for not using GitHub. When an OSS project pays for GitHub it doesn't force contributors to pay for GitHub. Contributors are still free to do what they want. The only thing which they get forced to use it Git, which is open source itself and which is the same with any other Git provider. On GitLab they would be just as much forced to use Git. It is just as much as they would be forced to use the maintainers chosen programming language. So the whole point about GitHub not putting their source code open is really a moot point. It feels like that there's some people who are so religious about open source everywhere that they have become blind to the actual situation. Also not everything in the world can be free. If a software developer doesn't want to pay for GitHub, then what on earth deserves to be paid for. I mean why do I have to pay anything in the world, why don't musicians and actors just decide to devote their time to only produce free movies (equivalent of developers to only doing open source software) or why shall I pay for my food? Surely everything should be free and so should I only go to cooks who cook for me for free...
The GNU project did an evaluation of various code repository services, and GitHub has problems other than the server code being proprietary[1].
The problem is that GitHub's client code is also proprietary (namely their site does not function when proprietary JavaScript is blocked), which makes it a user freedom issue.
However, their server code being non-free is additionally problematic because it would mean that GNU was recommending the usage of a proprietary service when there are free software alternatives. Which goes against the mission of GNU.
> If a software developer doesn't want to pay for GitHub, then what on earth deserves to be paid for.
When I use the word "free" I am referring to software freedom, not price. Please re-read my previous comment with that context in mind.
I mean as a developer your code repositories are the single most important thing where you want to sleep well (and your production infrastructure). Rather save money on shitty cinema tickets, Starbucks milkshakes (the shit they produce cannot be called coffee) or save some money on some shitty Apple adapters, but please get yourself a GitHub subscription.