I think the clue was in "Truly Open", github isn't open source and is fairly expensive for small teams with private repo's (compared to bitbucket for example).
It's network effects are large but beyond that the product doesn't really do anything that others don't do just as well.
I am not the GP. To me, supporting GitHub is like supporting Jetbrains. I know they're good people. I know they're trying to do good things. However, I will always have a nagging feeling that wishes that the universe was somehow different and that their business model made it possible for them to freely and openly offer all their software.
I guess I can include things like Aerospike and even Gitlab in that group. I don't actively wish for them to succeed either. I am glad they exist and I actively use their products but I would not cheer for any of them.
Why do you put GitLab in that category? We're trying hard to freely and openly offer as much as we can. We do have an open core business model with a proprietary GitLab EE. But I wonder what you think we have to change.
Most larger companies will not use a third party cloud service to host their code like github.com. They want software to run locally on their own servers instead.
Github offers their software to enterprise customers to run on their own servers, but they traditionally have done a bad job doing it, at least relative to gitlab. Today, dozens of open projects and even closed ones are using personal gitlab instances, but since the ecosystem is more open on gitlab contributions come back in to make it a much more friendly tool to self-host.
Tons of larger companies favor gitlab for exactly that reason.
I mean, I'm always happy to see competition keeping companies on their toes, but why do you actively want people to leave GitHub?