111–120 of 567 posts
Do the costs of running the servers and hosting the free services not cover the revenue from Enterprise users?
I believe that any Enterprise users won't notice even a doubling of the subscription fee, if GitHub really needs it.
I don't know why there needs to be more than a handful of employees working at github, just don't break what's already there!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost nobody who even worked at Microsoft in 1996 still actually works at Microsoft. You are bringing up something said in one meeting from when floppy disks were still pretty important to the computing world. I can't fathom a single statement from 1996 about a computer company that is still accurate today, and EEE falls into that category as well.
"postmaster@nsa.gov" is probably still true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I lived through the 90s, so I disagree. Anyone who feels perfectly comfortable with Microsoft's embracing of things they like is ignoring history. Maybe it's different this time, maybe it isn't.
Microsoft has been changing a lot. Embracing linux in their cloud offering, offering unix as a subsystem on Windows, open sourcing their work. Anyone who likens the current MSFT to anything resembling what it was in the 90s hasn't been paying attention to the current leadership.
The one thing that I like about Github is that everything is public by default and you have to pay to keep your code private. I feel like a positive consequence of that business choice was the opening up of way more software. Gitlab, while being very awesome doesn't have that same rule and neither does Bitbucket. It's my assumption that this is the biggest reason there's so much open source code flowing right now. It…
Not having to pay for private is the reason we chose Bitbucket back in the days.
This has me wondering, what Microsoft wants GitHub for? It's not like they can't use it without owning it, and I doubt they want to improve it as it is. Probably they want control before integrating it with their products.
An acquisition would mean the inevitable split of support between the MS toolchain and the OS toolchain, which would eventually be left to die. Today's MS is no different than yesterday's MS.
> Today's MS is no different than yesterday's MS I'm not sure that's true, but it is true that MS would have motivation to leverage Github to promote other (licensed) MS software. At a conference years ago, a Microsoft rep told me over beers that almost everything his division did had the ultimate objective of selling more SQL Server licenses. That's why SQL Server is a required component of almost all MS enterprise…
This is pretty much business 101. You have loss leaders, that are solely designed to drive traffic to different products.
Oh shit. I run Windows. I have respect for Microsoft. A lot of people do not, however, and the sense that Microsoft is ritually unclean will drive many of them away from github. It's the best thing that's happened to BitBucket and Altassian ever. If I have a choice between MS tools and Altassian tools I will usually take MS. (Visual Source Safe really did suck, but Visual Studio is not that bad...) Also, Microsoft ac…
Source Safe is ancient. TFS is their new jam and it's pretty solid. Especially if you're in the Visual Studio and Azure world.
I also love it how it detects changes on unchanged files ( they look at last modified timestamp) and you can't undo the unchanged unless you install TFPT and google for a bit for the command.
I also love it how when doing merges sometimes you have 10 000 conflicts even tho the files are unchanged :)
TFVC is bad and it should die... I'm glad they took up on git... now all i have to do is train my team on how to use git :)
For the comparisons of this acquisition to Skype, yes Microsoft bungled the Skype acquisition. But they have been killing it with Typescript and Visual Studio. I feel like that at such a large company, the Typescript recent history matters more than the Skype history. Two very different areas with different people in charge, etc.
As much as I love VSCode, you live in a buble. A communication app affects way more people than a programming language or a text editor. Even my mother uses the former, while only a fraction of all the programmers I met in my life use the laters. And MS did messed up on other major products or companies - Rare video games. They did freaking golden eyes and conkers bad day and they manage to kill it. - they messed up…
> monopoly on the media player and the web browser on the most used OS in the world
I know it's a trope to say that IE was a monopoly, but the longest view of these stats I can easily find comes from W3Counter[1] and at what appears to be its market peak in 2007, IE6 and IE7 had 50% and 17% of the market.
OK, so the combined share was downtrending since the actual peak in 2004, according to ADTECH data from Europe[2]...
Huh. There are stats that go way further back, to before IE was dominant, and Wikipedia says it actually peaked in 2002, with 96% of the market.[3] I stand corrected?
I started my reply to make a point, and upon doing the basic research found that it appears I don't know what I'm talking about. These stats are really interesting, though!
FWIW, I have not been primarily a Windows user since I was about 14 years old. That was in 1999, when Netscape was still a player in the market, and I began my switch to Linux. I guess I forgot (or blacked out, it was traumatic) the fact that there was a point in time in the Browser Wars when IE was effectively declared the winner. It's been a steady downhill trend since then!
[1]: https://www.w3counter.com/trends
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#AD...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Re...
these talks are actually not new. the same rumor appeared back in 2016 https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/07/github-is-raising-a-second... imho, github feels a bit too slow innovating, which is kinda surprising since they are still "a startup"