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

721–730 of 1001 posts

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#721

Post by Iv »

hobofan wrote: post #132
PascLeRasc wrote: post #34

This is sad news. Partially because I don't care for Microsoft, but mostly because Github was a neutral third-party without any priorities. I hope they don't discontinue Atom or apply their UX styling to the site/desktop app. Like Spotify, I felt safer that a company was just doing hosting in their domain (of music or code projects) and wouldn't try to shovel some other tech into it like Apple making Apple Music terr…

> I hope they don't discontinue Atom Hadn't crossed my mind that they might drop Atom for VS Code before...

Atom is open source though. One company can not decide to kill it.

https://github.com/atom/atom

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#722

Post by jacksmith21006 »

cookiecaper wrote: post #241
sytse wrote: post #186

Thanks for mentioning GitLab as the next big one. We're seeing people #movingtogitlab

GitLab is also venture funded. What's the end game there? Wouldn't GitLab's investors, including YC, be ecstatic to see the company achieve a similar outcome? Wouldn't they consider basically any other outcome to be a failure? The bigger question is why GitHub didn't IPO. They have name recognition and prominence such that it wouldn't really be a surprise to hear that they were doing so. I don't have any internal det…

Should be the big winner as the big guys move off of GitHub. Hopefully they will all go to a common site.

Finally had a single site and MS destroys it.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#723

Post by komali2 »

Fice wrote: post #705
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can easily migrate your repo to a different service, so having lots of developers rely on GitHub isn't really a big deal. Many large projects have GitHub mirrors. I'd say the biggest issue is that Git doesn't include better built-in support for issues, wikis, PRs / code reviews, and releases. Compare that to Fossil [0], which lets you bundle up everything into a single file. If there was better built-in support y…

I'm glad to see Fossil mentioned here. Yet the real problem is not in the technical aspects and possibilities of project hosting migration, it's the dependence of the majority of open-source developers on GitHub's centralized social network.

Hopefully if this turns GitHub evil, other social networks can be leveraged to assist in a population migration. Like, someone posting a link on Twitter to wherever the repo will exist in the future.

This makes me wonder how hard it is to securely host a git server on my own. I'll start googling but I bet the answer is gonna be "hard."

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#724

Post by jacksmith21006 »

qop wrote: post #512

This is amazing. I hope they build in support for Azure and let us have free private repos. Congratulations to Microsoft!

This is terrible news. Big guys will have to move code elsewhere. We finally has a single and neutral site and MS destroys it.

Swear MS does not want us to have nice stuff.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#725

Post by ceohockey60 »

Just like how no e-commerce/retailer wants to use AWS for competitive reasons, now no tech company who hosts its codebase on GitHub would want to continue doing that if its MSFT-owned. It's already happening: https://twitter.com/nixcraft/status/1003388106626629632

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#726

Post by Moru »

neckardt wrote: post #474
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…

I've always found it too difficult to choose the "decentralized" option for many services. It's just not convenient enough to spin up my own gitlab server, or own email. I tried to do both of those things a while ago when I was still new to Linux, and gave up due to the number of steps involved which I inevitably fucked up. The solution for me would be packages which hold my hand through the install process to make i…

Decentralized doesn't mean you have to host everything yourself, there are many other companies to pay to host things outside your server. You don't want everything hanging centralized on your hardware anyway, if your server dies, everything is down.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#727

Post by maxxxxx »

If somebody of the size of GitHub can't manage to stay a standalone company it's a pretty sad state of affairs. We really need more players in this industry. It's becoming more and more a monoculture (not sure what the term is for a few players that together pretty much have monopoly. Oligopoly?)

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#728

Post by Jdam »

ceohockey60 wrote: post #725

Just like how no e-commerce/retailer wants to use AWS for competitive reasons, now no tech company who hosts its codebase on GitHub would want to continue doing that if its MSFT-owned. It's already happening: https://twitter.com/nixcraft/status/1003388106626629632

> Just like how no e-commerce/retailer wants to use AWS for competitive reason

My former employer, a major e-commerce player in Europe and a direct competitor of Amazon, had basically their entire infrastucture on AWS. You might want to reconsider your definition of “no”.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#729

Post by yrashk »

CrypticOne274 wrote: post #717
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can easily migrate your repo to a different service, so having lots of developers rely on GitHub isn't really a big deal. Many large projects have GitHub mirrors. I'd say the biggest issue is that Git doesn't include better built-in support for issues, wikis, PRs / code reviews, and releases. Compare that to Fossil [0], which lets you bundle up everything into a single file. If there was better built-in support y…

I’m glad to see Gitea commented here. I’ve been using Gitea at work for about 3 months now and really enjoy it.

With tools like SIT (https://sit.fyi) you can keep your issues and patches inside of the Git (or other SCM) repository.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#730

Post by 2_listerine_pls »

flatline wrote: post #571
EnderMB wrote: post #117

I spent eight years building software on .NET, so I have a lot of time for Microsoft, but I fully understand why a lot of people aren't happy with this news. It's been good to have a leader in open-source that is unaffiliated with anyone but the tech they chose to use (Ruby/Rails). For me, it doesn't matter who takes it over - it's just sad to see a neutral player disappear. With all that said, things have changed a…

I also spent years working with Microsoft’s proprietary technologies. The reality of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish was still alive and well as late as 2011 when I mostly stopped dealing with them. Since that time they have definitely taken a new direction, with increasing adoption of Linux in particular, but I have trouble belieiving the corporate DNA has been so thoroughly overwritten in the last few years that this d…

Microsoft is one of Linux Foundation biggest donors, which means they have leverage over them. They are invited to discuss new Linux developments, products, etc...
Post reply on HN