This can't possibly be good for open sourcing, can it?
They've been surprisingly non-dickish about open source stuff recently compared to the past.
MS don't exactly have any problems with open source stuff. After all, a lot of their projects are moving to open source licenses starting with the entire .Net framework and compiler suite. The only things they're particularly protective of are their tangible products like Windows, Office, SQL Server, etc.
It'll probably be fine.
The question isn't whether you think Microsoft probably won't fuck up GitHub, bit whether having a corporation known for anti-competitive practices taking ownership of one of the top sites for developers sharing open source software is better somehow than GitHub running as it always has.
I wonder to what degree will Github remain independent? Will they keep their left wing hiring practices or will they be absorbed by MS?
I'm not sure how it could be bad. If they fucked up github, everyone would just switch to bitbucket or some other source control system.
I don't think this will be a bad thing, but I do wonder what Microsoft can actually offer Github? It kind of works because it's quite simple, and we already have huge self hosted solutions for Git if you need them.
They'll probably move the Github stuff over to their Azure servers. Other than that they just don't have to worry about keeping the lights on.
I'd keep an eye out for any changes to Github's TOS. I wouldn't put it past microsoft to sneak in a clause that lets them take IP ownership of anything they want on the site.
A buy out like this can be a good thing
but the thing is, the moment skype was owned by microsoft, they started to really fuck it up hard. The program now is just absolute garbage, I never touch it any more.
RIP Github. Guess it's time to move everything again.
Tho, skype was quite awhile ago. (Also, mostly seems to just cater to business now.) Hard to tell what MS will do w/ github.
They did buy beam, and turned it into mixer, which is actually a pretty decent streaming site at least.
That would be instant suicide. I doubt it.
The ease of moving things makes me not really worry about this at all.
VCS like git and mercurial are great, because if some central host dies/goes to shit, that's literally not hard problem to fix. You just clone your local copy to another website, and you're good to go. Hell, you can use hooks to have this done automatically.
Well, they bring their business chops to the table, and make github fix their pricing! I mean, look at this:
https://www.visualstudio.com/team-services/pricing/
That's private repos being offered for free, with an interface and features not unlike github's. Free! If MS shuts down VSTS in favor of github, you can be damned sure that they'll migrate the pricing scheme, and single-handedly corner the single developer and small team markets.
Just gonna leave this here (clicky for full story)
https://twitter.com/jamiebuilds/status/1002696910266773505
Btw I wonder what will happen to atom?
I wouldn't be surprised if microsoft kills it, tbh. VScode kind of occupies the same niche of being a foss cross-platform electron-based editor that is highly configurable, but is written much better (at least it performs better.) The only reason to use atom really is because it has some plugins vscode doesn't.
I always saw GitHub as a neutral third party, with Microsoft acquiring them this changes things. Github will no longer be that neutral third party for source code hosting and this is very worrying. You are deluded if you think Microsoft won't in the future use whatever tools at their disposal to fuck over competitors or us lowly mortals in the name of profit. It's just a question of when and how they will do that. Treating Microsoft as anything but a company that strives to make as much profit as possible even if it requires fucking over their customers or competitors is deranged.
Google code was fine for quite awhile, the thing is that repo hosting is such a basic service that it's going to be pretty hard for MS to really fuck people.
Also iirc github was pretty consistently losing money, so the neutral third-party thing probably wasn't going to last.
Just because you can't think of a way they will fuck over people doesn't mean they will find one. I wasn't aware they were losing money although if they are I'm willing to put that down to mismanagement. GitHub is one of the most well known and largest code repositories, how do you even fuck up that badly that you're losing money.
I think Gitlab is already dying under the load of projects being moved over, trying to move a repo that's simply a readme file and it's taking forever :v
Microsoft actually had a Google Code and Git repo competitor site that was shut down in 2017 and allowed repo migration over to github.
http://i.heykidwannayiff.com/chrome_2018-06-03_23-39-24.png
I think they have experience running project hosting sites, so I'm not TOO worried
I can't imagine Google or similar companies are likely to host future projects on GitHub given this. Sad day.
It's an open source project, people will keep working on it if they want to keep working on it.
Because processing that much data isn't actually very cheap. Hell, that's probably one reason they accepted this offer was to gain direct access to Azure hosting, potentially making things cheaper.
I don't really care much for empty theorizing, git, and version control systems in general, are pretty simple things. They just don't have the opportunity for dangerous abuse like say, MS keeping secrets about Windows in the 90s stopping people from competing with office.
At worst they might be dicks with pricing to companies like Apple and Google, but those companies p. much already have internal hosting already that they keep most of their internal shit on, and for just public websites there's loads of shit like gitlab, bitbucket, etc.. You also might be surprised at how often tech companies work together without fucking eachother that much in the first place, Apple pretty much can't make iPhones without the manufacturing of their biggest competitor as an example.
GitHub as a service has been good even though the people behind it are less than stellar. But I don't have a lot of faith in Microsoft of all people to do the right thing
To be honest, saying that it's a costly operation isn't very helpful. Of course it's a costly operation, what I said that given how much adoption they have received among big and small companies it's hard to conceive that they are losing money because of any reason but mismanagement. They have the users but they failed to capitalise on it.
I mean, they've tried. Problem is really aside from a few projects they've thrown out to the open, most companies, especially the big ones, seem to be using their own hosted solutions.
So github enterprise is probably a bit handicapped in what they can accomplish with it, the only feature that they seem to be able to offer normal users that they'd care about are the private repositories. They could try taking features away but that'd piss people off quite a bit, so I'm not really sure what you want them to try to do.
It's better to piss of a few users than to lose money, I doubt many would care if it was to keep their favourite platform alive. I still maintain that if they are losing money then it's down to mismanagement, GitHub is a much more complex service than Vine so I don't think it's fair to compare the two. There is a lot of features that make up GItHub and it's not just a simple repository hosting service, you can't compare GitHub to something like cgit (which is an example of a simple repo hosting solution).
Guess it's time to close another account.
Probably would. If anything, they'd try merging some differences so that they can focus on having one good program, instead of managing two different programs entirely. It won't be instant, but it'll happen down the line
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
