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

Hello, GitHub

natfriedman.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 671 posts

Re: Hello, GitHub

#221

Post by kaplun »

foobaw wrote: post #148
ericabiz wrote: post #7

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…

Google and Facebook have tons of private repositories hosted on GitHub. I'd imagine it would be illegal for Microsoft to look into them but Microsoft being such a huge company, this acquisition could easily make Google and Facebook nervous.

They likely have only the open source repos, not the private ones.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#222

Post by meddlepal »

oaiey wrote: post #165
nicodjimenez wrote: post #145

What nobody is really commenting on is how huge of an opportunity this is for Microsoft to reinvent itself in the eyes of the developer community. If Microsoft can somehow manage to gain trust from Github users, which is very possible and desirable for them, it will make Azure more compelling in many ways than Amazon as a cloud computing platform. After Amazon's acquisition of Cloud9, Microsoft is the first big compa…

The Microsoft bashing is painful. I also wonder about outcomes like that, positive ones for Microsoft, GitHub the platform and GitHub the community. So much negativity!

Agree a lot of negativity here. I don't really use any of the MS stack at all but I really want to see where they take things from here.

The last few years have been very positive for Microsoft in my eyes from an outsider perspective. They're saying and doing the right things.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#223

Post by xfer »

earenndil wrote: post #136
badminton1 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It seems more an attack specifically on 'viral' licenses like the gpl than on oss in general.

viral how? You think it's morally ok to just use others work without contributing back any improvements/disclosing it to make money?

Re: Hello, GitHub

#224

Post by some_account »

ericabiz wrote: post #7

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…

They will do what they say until they don't have to anymore,l. Until they have killed the alternatives and there is only their choice left.

This is Microsoft. I cannot understand why people trust this company. Actually trust their PR messages. It's amazing.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#225

Post by fishywang »

ericabiz wrote: post #7

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…

I agree that people are overreacting, but I think the overreacting is good for git in general. It helps smaller players (Gitlab, etc.) to break the monopoly of Github, and reverse the wrong conception a lot of new developers have that git == github. Remember git is supposed to be decentralized? In reality it's actually centralized on github, and github is becoming the single point of failure on the developer world, which is not great. (Google actually has an internal mirror of github[1] for that reason)

[1] It's only for public projects with a license that doesn't prohibit Google from mirroring it, and only for projects Google depends on.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#226

Post by Applejinx »

ericabiz wrote: post #7

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…

I think the whole situation of consolidation into titanic unanswerable powers is horrible, but I can say this for Microsoft and its intentions: If the situation was that GitHub would inevitably be devoured and consolidated into something, I can think of worse devourers (by at least a small margin). Amazon. Facebook. Bayer ;D

I preferred Github to be an independent thing, and I wonder if the world's changed to where you can't have independent things, you can only choose your master, and you can't actually choose that either. If it's that, could be worse.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#227

Post by baldfat »

snowwolf wrote: post #59
baldfat wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because it’s an indicator of a loss of independence. And if you went through the Skype changeover you’ll know exactly what a fiasco that change to a Microsoft account was.

You mean from 2011 when Microsoft had totally different management and business model? I don't see the Steve Ballmer Microsoft has much bearing on today's Microsoft.

Also it wasn't the Microsoft Account change as much as the they had the weird MS Store or Local account sign in options. I removed the Store sign in and only used local and had no issues. Am I missing something?

Re: Hello, GitHub

#228

Post by p2t2p »

bdcravens wrote: post #185
superflyguy wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I'll change part of the URL I've soft coded from ...hub... to ...lab... to ... bucket...

Any reason why you implicitly trust Atlassian?

The reason you can trust Atlassian a bit more because they have more narrow focus on dev tools so less chances that they could become a competitor. Unless you’re developing another (git/bit)(hub/lab/bucket)

Re: Hello, GitHub

#229

Post by gkoberger »

Gys wrote: post #210

Good to hear. Still, I have these memories of Facebook buying Whatsapp for too much money and first saying it will be impossible to integrate both platforms. Surprise, surprise, later they did find a way to integrate. Microsoft paying 7.5B for something that looses money every year ? And not having any problems with that ? What will the shareholders say ?

Well, I think that's the point. They want to monetize the enterprise edition better. Combining GitHub's product with Microsoft's cabal of credit-card-ready existing purchasers. Microsoft has built a community of developers that expect to pay for dev tools, which is rare.

So, they can have the existing product operate as-is, and Microsoft can make money by moving their legacy high-paying consumers to something better.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#230

Post by newlunarfire »

fishywang wrote: post #225
ericabiz wrote: post #7

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…

I agree that people are overreacting, but I think the overreacting is good for git in general. It helps smaller players (Gitlab, etc.) to break the monopoly of Github, and reverse the wrong conception a lot of new developers have that git == github. Remember git is supposed to be decentralized? In reality it's actually centralized on github, and github is becoming the single point of failure on the developer world, w…

It is a single point of failure for devs around the world. Remember the attack on Dyn DNS? Thousands and millions of devs stopped working because GH was down.
Post reply on HN