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

Microsoft acquires Github

blogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 840 posts

Re: Microsoft acquires Github

#271

Post by rootlocus »

heckanoobs wrote: post #243
rootlocus wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Microsoft will fix that. You have no way of knowing what Microsoft will or will not fix. This is just blind hype.

We can assume Microsoft's motivation is money, they have a long history of selling professional solutions to development teams, I'm a developer with a team on GitHub in need of solutions, and I have money. It's Microsoft's to lose. I think you're mistaking your blind hate for my blind hype

> I think you're mistaking your blind hate for my blind hype

I don't hate microsoft, and I've shown no hate in my comment. I'm pointing out that you can't expect all your problems to be solved because of an ownership change. Caution and skepticism will serve you better than wishful thinking and hype.

Re: Microsoft acquires Github

#272

Post by Paul_S »

tcfunk wrote: post #246
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that last one sarcastic? Because with Skype they finally tossed the 15-20 year old client with a slick (and lacking in features) electron-like app. Better to start fresh than try and maintain the old shit. Anyway Skype is a non-issue, it's lost market thanks to pretty much everyone making a chat app / competitor, notably Slack.

> Anyway Skype is a non-issue, it's lost market thanks to pretty much everyone making a chat app / competitor, notably Slack. I think that's a pretty false statement in the world of big business.

Skype for Business (what used to be lync) has got nothing to do with Skype and is being dropped by Microsoft in favour of Teams.

Re: Microsoft acquires Github

#273

Post by wewake »

This doesn't seem okay. I don't feel good about this acquisition. I used to associate Github with open-source, now I'm going to have to associate it with another proprietary software from Microsoft and that breaks my heart a little.

"Developers are the builders of this new era, writing the world’s code. And GitHub is their home.", doesn't feel like home anymore. :(

Re: Microsoft acquires Github

#274

Post by erulabs »

jacquesm wrote: post #260
erulabs wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only on HN / in San Francisco would the federal government (if I understand you correctly) be preferable to a technology company which has been a key player in the PC and internet marketplace for decades. I’m not trying to lionize M$, but come on - a Public Utility? As if the government doesn’t already burn enough cash....

> if I understand you correctly You don't. We are the public. If GitHub did an annual funding drive a-la wikipedia it would definitely keep them afloat. A-propos, would you be OK with Microsoft buying Wikipedia? Archive.org?

Having been to the GitHub offices and having dined at their in-office restaurant, and having gotten drunk at their free bar - the answer is an asbsolute no regarding me funding then via donation. I’ll continue to fund the Linux foundation, and continue to run my own git server, and continue to enjoy the fruits of VC funding, but donations for GitHub? Insanity. I would for sure be happier if they reached profitability on their own, but that was pretty clearly not in the cards.

As for Wikipedia, I feel similarly, except Wikimedia runs a fairly tight ship, and lacking a corporate product offering (or market) means I’m much more happy to donate. They don’t run in the deep red intentionally, which is the key difference. Also, GitHub is extremely easily replaceable (and we -need- diversity in code hosting for FOSS), whereas Wikipedia is not quite so replaceable, and diversity in open encyclopedia platforms doesn’t help anyone...

Re: Microsoft acquires Github

#275

Post by BlackjackCF »

ulkesh wrote: post #20

The real question everyone should be asking is whether Microsoft is trustworthy, cognizant, and honorable enough to be the steward of such a major player that facilitates a large portion of open source software. This has me very concerned for the open source community.

I think the bigger question is that even if Microsoft is headed in a more trustworthy direction now, there's no knowing if they'll stay that course in a decade when there's a new CEO. Things shift.

I can definitely see why this would be a desirable acquisition on GitHub's side. They were bleeding money. I can't blame them.

Re: Microsoft acquires Github

#276

Post by atonse »

jacquesm wrote: post #250
atonse wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m so tired of this trope. It’s like nothing Microsoft does is ever enough for people to realize that there is enough new leadership that isn’t doing this nonsense. Is there any evidence in the Nadella years of MS doing this in the way they used to do this in the 90s?

Nadella has worked at MS long enough to have been there when the company was all-in on SCO vs Linux. He's been there since 1992 . That means that if he was so ethically challenged that he could sit through that without piping up that I have very little hope that there is a real and sincere change happening. Most of what I see is just very clever PR whilst under the hood not much has changed. They just got a lot smart…

This comes down to your definition of “core business”

Open source (LibreOffice) has never seriously threatened office for professionals so much as maybe google docs, and even then not so much. And they’ve made great moves towards subscriptions so that’s going strong.

Windows isn’t threatened so much by open source unless you talk about either Apple or chromebooks. Again, less about open source and more about the web.

They’ve already lost developer mindshare to open source culture. So they responded apppropriately by open sourcing their entire .NET platform, and actually using a useful license like Apache, not some murky custom commercial nonsense.

How do you suppose they’re going to start hurting the open source world? I’m all ears, especially given they’d have to sue companies like FB and Google.

Just because Nadella was there, it doesn’t mean he ran that operation that sued SCO. Otherwise that would’ve come out.

Plus with personalities like Bill Gates, they would clearly override any dissent.

Re: Microsoft acquires Github

#277

Post by forgottenpass »

jacquesm wrote: post #222
scarface74 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So which company would you rather buy Github? GitHub wasn't profitable. Would you rather it just disappear?

> So which company would you rather buy Github? None. It could be run as a public utility or it could be turned into something federated to absorb the bulk of the hosting costs.

That's a nice idea and all, but was there ever any path to accomplish it without asking everyone invested in GitHub to take an unforced L?

GitHub was a startup, and that comes with certain expectations and constraints on their future. But, for some crazy reason, avoiding GitHub wasn't a particularly popular position to take a week ago. People who understood the business realities of Facebook dunked on normal people for getting duped, then went around and complained that everyone should just submit to network effects and get on github.

Re: Microsoft acquires Github

#278

Post by detaro »

ulkesh wrote: post #175
pavlov wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why were you not concerned previously about an unprofitable SV startup holding that central position? GitHub wasn’t a non-profit. This was always the endgame for them. They were losing money to acquire a userbase that would be sold when the time is right — just like WhatsApp and numerous other big social SV plays.

Who says I wasn't? And I know Github wasn't a non-profit. You make quite a number of assumptions with your statement. The difference for me is that I was supporting Github (by paying) to be an independent company, warts and all. If their goal was to always sell specifically to Microsoft, I would have voiced many concerns very early on. I would much rather they had sold to Mozilla or another in the open source communi…

Who in the open source community could afford to buy them, once they took VC at 2 billion valuation? maybe Red Hat, but even that seems stretching it?

Re: Microsoft acquires Github

#280

Post by giancarlostoro »

jacquesm wrote: post #207
AsyncAwait wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apparently people didn't like having fully locked down computers and they discontinued the product, shocker. They do, it just can't pretend to be a full on computer, see the iPad.

It doesn't have to pretend, it is a full computer that is intentionally crippled by the vendor. Apple doing it to doesn't make it any less despicable. These stupid strategies turn perfectly good computers into landfill.

Windows apps are NOT compiled for ARM though. It would take emulating the entire x86 processor arch on ARM to allow this to run normal software on it or the original devs porting / recompiling with ARM in mind. A lot of old windows software is only available in original binary form and the source is long gone.
Post reply on HN