131–140 of 567 posts
Microsoft has embraced Github with it's recent .Net core development, they are one of the largest contributors with some incredible cross platform dev tooling. C# is a pleasure and visual studio code is an excellent, extensible coding tool. Go forth Microsoft, the standard bashing in these communities is unjust.
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…
I still remember the old days where most opensource projects were doing self-hosting or using sourceforge. Self-hosting is something that most developers that just want to build something nice won't consider. And using sourceforge back then was also atrocious (they didn't exactly have an easy to use UI, if I remember correctly).
This makes me think that what contributed the most to there being so much open source, is the easyness of creating your own repository on GitHub. With just a few clicks you have one.
This is our chance to gain a GitHub+LinkedIn integration. Just imagine... your LinkedIn profile and endorsements will auto-populate based on commit & PR activity.
Microsoft has embraced Github with it's recent .Net core development, they are one of the largest contributors with some incredible cross platform dev tooling. C# is a pleasure and visual studio code is an excellent, extensible coding tool. Go forth Microsoft, the standard bashing in these communities is unjust.
There is enough just criticism of Microsoft's bad practices that remain damaging to this day. So no, MS is clearly a bad steward for GitHub.
Really hope these talks fall through and nothing comes of it. Too many bad experiences with Microsoft buying something out, mismanaging it, and it goes down the drain. As much as I love GitHub, I won't be using a Microsoft-owned GitHub for any of my company's work.
What is the connection between SOME of their newer dev tools being good (oh, just try the mess that is Visual Studio) and... well, anything else.
Why does GitHub need to be acquired at all? 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!
Hopefully it's just a negotiation tactic to get Google to buy them for more than their first offer.
Google is notorious for killing products too, though. For me, much of the same rationale would apply
Google Reader is the product that seems to leave the most bitterness, but that too seems to have been relatively niche.
Google killed Google Code in 2016 and moved much of their code base to Github. Maybe they'll rebrand Github back to "Code", but outright killing it seems unlikely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> will do away with GitHub's current, open nature. Apparently the Gnome folks concluded that GitHub was already too closed to even consider them in the competition for the question "Where will the Gnome project live in the future?" GitLab won that competition, btw, and icrosoft wasn't even part of that calculus.
With current trends in Microsoft's Developer Division, it's possible that GitHub could end up way more open if Microsoft acquired them. GitHub's core business is GitHub and they need that to stay closed to stay competitive. GitHub under Microsoft could have less financial pressure to keep closed. Is it likely? I don't know. It is an interesting possibility though, that would certainly change the game.