Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#601

Post by notimetorelax » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 11:10 PM UTC

EnderMB wrote: post #555

closeparen wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This dovetails nicely with Windows Subsystem for Linux, VS Code, and Microsoft’s ongoing play to capture the Silicon Valley hipster development ecosystem that Apple is alienating.

This was largely my thought behind the move. Given that GitHub is quite proudly built on Ruby, I can't see them wanting to switch things up from a tech perspective. GitHub is stable, and it's tech stack is capable of staying up despite some major DDoS attacks. If anything, I think this is an opportunity for Microsoft to introduce themselves to the Ruby and Rails teams, and to finally resolve the issues that stop Wind…

I work for Microsoft, we run systems that are not built on MS technologies. There’s absolutely no push for migration. In my opinion, no-one will pressure GitHub to change their stack, it would be a suicide.

Disclaimer: this is just my personal opinion.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#602

Post by dannyw » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 11:12 PM UTC

unreal37 wrote: post #171

LeanderK wrote: post #45

I am worried that a company as important to the open-source community as github is now owned by one of the major players. I think it really impacts the neutrality of github. If I would compete with microsoft in a certain space, I would really think twice about relying on github. Also, this monopolization is driving me mad.

They weren't profitable. So the problem perhaps is these cool free tools that some people rely on just don't have a clear way to make money.

How profitable would they be if they didn’t pursue “growth at all costs” and built GitHub with a small and focused team like Stack Overflow or WhatsApp?

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#603

Post by marpstar » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 11:12 PM UTC

alkonaut wrote: post #580

wmij wrote: post #550

There probably won't be (m)any noticeable changes for the open source and devs running personal private repos and possibly the same for GitHub team plans. However, I'd bet Microsoft will plan on a sunset timetable for TFS and push their licensing and sales machine toward GitHub for Enterprise. I'm glad my group isn't on GitHub for Enterprise because after seeing this news I'd be looking to migrate away ASAP. I can en…

Why would they sunset TFS (Or VSTS)? I use both and there is barely any overlap in features. GitHub is only code storage + a rudimentary issue manager. There is very little release management, test management, CI/CD etc. If anything I’d expect them to integrate better and of course integrate more with Azure (e.g one-click setup of build/test on azure from any Github project)

Agreed. I see MSFT keeping GitHub as a "simple" choice for repo hosting.

VSTS is awesome, and quite feature-packed. Maybe Microsoft will use GitHub specifically for repo hosting, while offering VSTS as an CI/CD/ALM platform.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#604

Post by spystath » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 11:13 PM UTC

feelix wrote: post #587

Does it strike anyone else as ironic that Linus, the creator of linux, wrote git, which then went on to be used for github... and that it was good enough that Linus decided to use it to host linux on github, and then Microsoft bought it? So now, unless it gets moved, the linux kernel is going to be hosted on Microsoft's platform, even though git itself was created by the creator of linux.

The official git repo of the kernel is git.kernel.org. The github one is just a mirror and it's just sad that is returned as a first result on Google.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#605

Post by danso » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 11:16 PM UTC

zzzcpan wrote: post #538

st26 wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Centralization has an undeniable fundamental attraction. Everything, really, seems to naturally trend towards centralization, and then major scandals reverse the trend. We will probably swing back and forth between the two in perpetuity. The whole darn internet was built to be decentralized. And yet we all use GMail, the same handful of DNS servers, the same short list of major trunk hubs, the same shrinking list of…

> Centralization has an undeniable fundamental attraction. Everything, really, seems to naturally trend towards centralization How so? Centralization is merely enforced by the government and incentivized by the system it exists in.

Many humans are social creatures and like to congregate.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#606

Post by _betty_ » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 11:16 PM UTC

jwilk wrote: post #154

dghughes wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought many people did after the infamous incident at Github.

What incident?

They ran dome SQL on wrong server and wiped main db instead of its mirror. Lost around 48 hours of stuff (as multiple backups also failed)

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#607

Post by azernik » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 11:18 PM UTC

makecheck wrote: post #180

This seems like an odd move that I would have expected investors in GitHub to oppose for the sake of preserving one of GitHub’s biggest advantages: its large number of projects (to the point where it seems like practically everything is on GitHub). You see, whether or not it’s justified, some projects invariably will leave GitHub simply because it’s Microsoft . And then, GitHub will no longer feel like a place where…

They don't call them "exits" for nothing - once a company is acquired, you have exited the market and no longer care about the future of the company, except insofar as it affects your payout at acquisition time.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#608

Post by 7ewis » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 11:18 PM UTC

Putting aside my general dislike for Microsoft for a moment, I still believe this is bad for the tech industry.

It was great having a neutral player running the site, I don't think anyone should own them. GitHub would be best as a nonprofit, though unfortunately I don't think that will ever happen.

Imagine if CNN for example bought Twitter, would other news companies use Twitter still? Probably not.

Will Google, Amazon etc. move their code elsewhere? Maybe. But we will no longer have a centralised git repo, whether that's a good or bad thing.

GitLab have already said they're having 10x the amount of normal traffic migrating GitHub repos to them.

Will employers now ask to see your GitHub/GitLab/Bitbucket profiles?

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#609

Post by kitsunesoba » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 11:18 PM UTC

rbosinger wrote: post #397

closeparen wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This dovetails nicely with Windows Subsystem for Linux, VS Code, and Microsoft’s ongoing play to capture the Silicon Valley hipster development ecosystem that Apple is alienating.

Yeah, the open source dev community may very well see Microsoft quite differently in upcoming years if they keep playing their cards this way.

The web dev part, anyway. Microsoft still has a long hill to climb to be in the graces of nearly any kind of native dev.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#610

Post by yjftsjthsd-h » Sun, Jun 03, 2018, 11:19 PM UTC

NicoJuicy wrote: post #569

I think a couple of people will change to gitlab or alternatives because of how Microsoft was in the 90's. But that Microsoft has changed, I see the most what people are complaining about is telemetry that is send, for following up on their biggest product. But all companies do this ( eg. https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/28/its-not-just-you-clicking-... ), also open source applications eg. Ubuntu,.. do this. Microsoft…

> I think a couple of people will change to gitlab or alternatives because of how Microsoft was in the 90's.

And because of how Microsoft was in the 2000s, and the 2010s. Ballmer was after the 90s. Did they ever stop suing Android manufacturers for using FAT, or open up exFAT after managing to get it as part of the SDXC standard?

> also open source applications eg. Ubuntu,.. do this

...Yeah, Ubuntu did that. Not Debian. Not Fedora. Not Arch. Not Gentoo. Even RHEL barely phones home enough to check its license and get updates. And in Ubuntu, the single Linux distro to have done this, you could toggle it off in 5 minutes and it would actually respect your choice, rather than "accidentally" resetting to the most invasive set of options every other update after you spend hours hunting the latest set of registry hacks that make it better.

> Microsoft has changed and I think they want to show it too

I agree that they want to show that they've changed. I even agree that the current ecosystem is forcing them to change some. I also expect them to pull something the moment they think they can get away with it.