> We installed as much hardware as available power allowed in our existing data centers while accelerating our migration to Azure.

And from the RCA [1]:

> The immediate cause of the failure was network saturation on load balancers in Central US due to a new peak in traffic.

[1]: https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/zkxwbgr0cnmx

I'm betting on Tangled and Codeberg. Tangled has a better press and in general is a dark horse, Codeberg has the "brand" and some network effects from projects that moved to there. (famously, Zig.) I heard that Sourcehut is having a moment as well, and I love the idea of email-based workflow and not having to have an account to contribute to someone's project hosted there, but I'm not maintaining anything worthwhile paying the $4/mo sub.

Ok, but there's no universe where a major Microsoft-owned property is not being forced to run on Azure. Just like AWS pushing to get off Oracle back in the day. It would be career-destroying to suggest otherwise regardless of technical merit (and tbf, no infrastructure is bulletproof, unless you want to port GitHub to z/OS on mainframe)

If you're a big company, you can afford having one engineer spend one or two days per year to maintain your self-hosted GitLab or Forgejo. On top of better reliability than GitHub, you'll get the additional bonus that your source code won't accidentally leak through being in Copilot's training set.

If you're a hobbyist, Codeberg is great, has a nice community and automatically shields you from slop contributions.

> Github is ripe for disruption and I hope it is disrupted soon.

It's an expensive, low revenue generating site.

There are, and have always been, competitors, including "host it all yourself" solutions, but nothing has really stuck.

How is it "ripe" for disruption?