71–80 of 671 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead of hollow frustration, you should try explaining what your actual issue with that is.
The issue is that I've been hearing that phrase at every interview from every candidate, on a lot of blogposts and presentations. It's a cheap and uncreative way to get under someone's skin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> thought of open source as a form of cancer, vocally talked against it Not that I deny it, because can you point me to some examples of this?
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_...
Him today: "I may have called Linux a cancer but now I love it"
https://www.zdnet.com/article/ballmer-i-may-have-called-linu...
If you can't beat them, join them.
Honestly though, Microsoft was beat into submission here. Developers and applications (in general) are moving to Linux. Microsoft has no leverage. Sure, buying GitHub may be seen as obtaining leverage, but I think it's clear that you can't strong-arm FOSS sustainably. Free and open is built in.
I’m going to be a bit contrarian to “the sky is falling” posts on HN and say: I think Microsoft is handling this really well. 1) They’ve acknowledged the skepticism around the acquisition. 2) They’ve expressed their commitment to keep GitHub an independent platform (like they did with LinkedIn.) 3) Nat Friedman, although I was not familiar with him prior to this, seems like an ideal candidate to run GitHub. This, ove…
>2) They’ve expressed their commitment to keep GitHub an independent platform (like they did with LinkedIn.) >3) Nat Friedman, although I was not familiar with him prior to this, seems like an ideal candidate to run GitHub. Nat seems like a decent candidate for GitHub CEO, but i'm having trouble reconciling Microsoft's commitment to keeping GitHub an independent platform with their installing a new CEO. that's not re…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2017/08/17/github-ce...
The fact that he is now a technical fellow, it seems to me that this is the ideal outcome for all the parties involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve seen many acquisitions commit to 2) only to slowly walk back from that “in the interests of operational efficiencies”. And next thing you know you have to change over to using a Microsoft account to log in...
What would be wrong having a Microsoft account to log in exactly? They aren't getting any more information from you then they have currently purchased. I remember when I had a YouTube account, a blogger account and a Google account and I am glad I just use one google account myself.
So I’m kind of depressed about this. I loved GitHub enough that I paid for a subscription without needing it and have all of my public work on it and my investment in OSS is quite significant. People saying that it is easy to migrate don’t know what they are talking about. GitHub isn’t just Git hosting, but a social network of open source developers and projects. You can’t migrate stars, issues with comments and the…
I'm using another service for my private repos, as github's pricing structure for a single dev is seriously uncompetitive. I wanted to move my public / open source repos for a long time. Now I finally I have the opportunity to do so without getting into discussions at an interview on why am I not using github. For people such as myself, I don't know what Microsoft / Github can do or say to convince otherwise.
$7/month is a burden? What's it competing with except a fancy coffee or two?
Honestly, can you think of a smarter move on the part of Microsoft than making Nat Friedman (a veteran of the Open Source community) CEO of Github? I completely trust this guy to do as good a job as can be done of guiding Github forward as a product and a platform, now that the venture capitalists are no longer in the picture.
Now this post from Nat, talking about how open source literally changed his life and made all things possible (which I agree with), bothers me even more. How can you say such things when your actions are so completely opposite? The hypocrisy is appalling to me.
Don't misunderstand, I do think Github has done great things for open source. However, it's time for them to either practice what they preach (open the code) or else we need to move to gitlab of gitea or something else.
I'm actually a bit optimistic that MS might open source github in the long run. It's a long shot, but they have really been incredible with how much they have opened up. I'm more optimistic now with MS at the reins.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> thought of open source as a form of cancer, vocally talked against it Not that I deny it, because can you point me to some examples of this?
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_... Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO said: "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches" That is a direct attack to open source licensing and open source software. Microsoft had to take that back after they were beaten in the market and lost popularity among developers. Now it's plan B: govern open source pro…
I hope that things don't change. I have come to rely on GitHub and I don't want to go investing in another solution.