Maybe you're eagerness to sing praises to the forgefed project overshadowed the common knowledge that git is already distributed but, git is already distributed. :P I think that's what parent was sarcastically trying to imply.
The first 16 words of your comment makes it very smarmy,v and not including them would have improved it.
GP's snark is misplaced, version control is but a subset of what forges offer, git has no social layer[1], and GitHub has a monopoly on this. A distributed social layer via ActivityPub would be a vast improvement over what we have now - at best, non-comprehensive one way synching of issues from GitHub into mirror repos, by way of polling the upstream.
GitHub must certainly does not have a monopoly on the social aspects of version control. But it does seem, from recent experience with e.g. Mastodon that the revealed preferences of users of social apps is for centralization. Even users (software developers) who likely have a higher familiarity with the pros and cons of centralization.
Also: Ask yourself why did Linus "solve" VC decentralization, but not social software decentralization. Probably because one is "easy" and the other is "not obviously possible". :)
> Ask yourself why did Linus "solve" VC decentralization, but not social software decentralization
Perhaps because it was out of scope? Linux kernel diffs are emailed, so Linus solved for email as the social layer, and it works well with mailing lists. If Pull Requests had predated git and the kernel had used them, Linus would have solved for
