While they’ve expanded the Marketplace, which is nice, they of course ‘inserted’ Microsoft products with which to integrate repos if one wishes. That in itself is fine. My personal experience, however, was of a very negative nature. In short, one example is this: after taking Azure for a spin a service from Microsoft caught my eye - an integrated screen reader for websites wishing to make their sites accessible to the blind. Yes, screen readers exist, but those within the blind population who exist at or below the “poverty line” can not afford anything quality that reads in natural sounding voices to enhance understanding. And yes, operating systems also offer accessibility services, but they are still subpar. I ended up speaking with a Microsoft representative explaining the very points made above, explained the low-complexity that static html would present to their service, directed them to the work I do so they could see it’s all FOSS, yet they would still only charge the same rate they’d charge a website of high complexity and (n)pages reaching any limit. The discussion lasted for ~.5h, the majority of that time spent in what was a friendly debate regarding why it would be a good business practice for Microsoft to offer that service at no cost to FOSS project sites to further enhance their image as “supporters” of Open Source Software. They refused and told me I can submit a suggestion on a certain related site (can’t recall the address), which I did. I’ve not heard from Microsoft and I do not expect to. The suggestion site seemed to be, after combing through dozens of posts going years back, more a release valve for customers than anything they take seriously.
I do not believe Microsoft has “changed their ways” as was claimed and as was projected via the takeover of GitHub. Since the beginnings of Linux they’ve done nothing but bash, sometimes very publicly and very rudely, the Open Source ecosphere.
It’s nice that they offer private repos to persons with free accounts, but GitLab and NotABug have done so (perhaps) from their inception. GitLab offers free Enterprise licenses to Open Source projects via an application process; and along with that comes a Gold level account when working directly online. The integrations they offer, e.g. Netlify w/ GitLab pages, work. I’ve experimented with various SSGs, e.g. Hugo, and never experienced any problems. People do, however, encounter problems when using GitHub pages with the above stated hosting company. I know this from combing through their community site. I’m certainly not promoting that hosting provider, as they don’t offer all that much for the prices they charge for their two paid tiers.
Regardless, Microsoft will never truly support open source software; buying GitHub only proves they want to own all that’s hosted there. The terms are horrid, and they’ve turned so in small steps. I kept my eye on their TOS for a while after the takeover, and although I never made a record of the changes, I do believe people can read back in time to the present and see just how their terms changed to favor Microsoft instead of the projects hosted there.
Additionally, whereas pre-Microsoft, GitHub devs were completely open to the creation of a desktop GitHub client for Linux, though it was never fully completed, now all that’s promoted and officially available are a client for Windows and a client for MacOS. GitLab has clients for a multitude of Linux OSs in addition to MacOS and Windows (I think they’ve one for Windows; I think). Their desktop client is, additionally, open source and has been since its creation. Empirically, I know who supports the Open Source ecosphere and who does not.