Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 1001 posts

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#151

Post by demosito666 »

gkya wrote: post #104
the_trapper wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also optimistic they'll revamp GitHub's pricing structure. Their current price of $7 a month is absolutely absurd for individual developers. I can get a pretty decent VPS for $2 a month cheaper. Considering that most of their competitors give small teams free private repos, their price should be half of that. I understand that they have a lot of open source projects to subsidize and all, but I highly doubt a lot…

I don't understand why a solo dev needs to host his private repos somewhere. You can just keep it on your machine, and have it backed up with the rest of your data. And given git is distributed, you should be able to work with teams w/o requiring Github.

Especially when you have free bitbucket for that purpose.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#152

Post by sverige »

ancarda wrote: post #98

If you're thinking of moving off GitHub, one thing that I have heard about that might help you is you can ask GitHub to mirror repos, the way https://github.com/moodle/moodle looks -- note it says: moodle/moodle mirrored from git://git.moodle.org/moodle.git That way any URLs to your GitHub repo should carry on working. People can even clone and pull this repo. That may ease migration, especially if some tools assume…

This will certainly be one of the first features to be deprecated once the deal goes through. Quietly deprecated, of course.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#153

Post by hobofan »

the_trapper wrote: post #81
madspindel wrote: post #4

Tbh, I like this move. I hope they will merge Atom with VS Code and shutdown VSTS in favor for GitHub.

I'm also optimistic they'll revamp GitHub's pricing structure. Their current price of $7 a month is absolutely absurd for individual developers. I can get a pretty decent VPS for $2 a month cheaper. Considering that most of their competitors give small teams free private repos, their price should be half of that. I understand that they have a lot of open source projects to subsidize and all, but I highly doubt a lot…

> Considering that most of their competitors give small teams free private repos, their price should be half of that.

Why would you lower your price if people are still paying for it and you are the market leader? Also at $7 per month it is among the cheapest tools for a professional developer.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#155

Post by jxub »

obl wrote: post #16

Tangentially related, but maybe microsoft could actually do that : why is github's search so terribly bad ? If they had developed a good powerful code search (custom semantic engine for most used languages, complex queries, exact/fuzzy matches for syntax, use of history, etc) they could have become the primary way you interact with code you don't know yet. As it stands now it's simply more efficient to clone and use…

SourceGraph tries to fix it, and the experience of searching, jump-to-definition and generally getting to grips with a codebase is way better there IMO. They also have browser plugins with integration to GitHub. I recommend you to check it out.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#156

Post by madeofpalk »

mikece wrote: post #7
madspindel wrote: post #4

Tbh, I like this move. I hope they will merge Atom with VS Code and shutdown VSTS in favor for GitHub.

Atom and VS Code are both built on Electron. No need to kill Atom as it and VS Code are built for different purposes.

I use neither, and I can see that the two take fairly different approaches, but why would you say they're build for different purposes. I don't think it's clear why a single org (though very far apart) has two approaches for a code text editor.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#158

Post by ceejayoz »

EchelonFuxMe wrote: post #125
kworker wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not self-hosting?

1. Electricity cost 2. Need for constant electricity 3. Internet cost 4. Need for constant Internet access 5. Cost of hardware 6. Heat generated by the running hardware 7. Noise generated by the running hardware 8. Space occupied by the hardware 9. Need to update and maintain hardware/software 10. Worse discoverability for your repos 11. ISP asking questions 12. Government asking questions 13. Police asking questions…

This is a weird comment.

"Self-hosting" doesn't have to mean having a giant server farm at home. You could put it on an AWS/GCP/Azure free-tier VPS instance.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#159

Post by aphextron »

What a betrayal. I'm starting to get really sick of this whole economic paradigm in general. A few lucky smart people who were in the right place at the right time become fabulously wealthy beyond the dreams of the greatest kings who ever lived in history, off the work and contributions of millions of users creating all of the content for free, with absolutely no say in anything. Is this really the best way to do things?
Post reply on HN