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

241–250 of 671 posts

Re: Hello, GitHub

#241

Post by dcow »

megaman22 wrote: post #167
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.

Microsoft accounts are a trainwreck... I've got at least three or four of them all with the same email address, and despite years of effort to link them together and consolidate, I still have to use all of them to log into different services and access different resources. The permissioning on things like Azure and VSTS doesn't make a lick of sense.

I began the process of creating an Azure account recently and somehow the Canada region was selected. The system locked my email address into Canada even though I already have a US region live account with the same email address. Since I don't have a Canadian zip code, I can't submit billing information and complete the provisioning process. I was willing to try Azure for a new project, but now I'm not because their accounts are such a mess. I talked with a project support technician for Azure who actually understood the issue but was unable to resolve it suggestion I use a different email address. I know I could, but on principle I won't.

I'm actually really excited about MS+GitHub, but have to agree the account situation sucks.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#242

Post by j4eo »

wpietri wrote: post #190
ggregoire wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes same here. I’m really surprised by all the Microsoft hate as if we were still in the 80-90’s. MS is one of the biggest open source contributors nowadays. It's also really weird how people idealize GitHub. Did they forget GitHub was not a non-profit association, they were losing money, they deleted users repositories on their own, they had management issues, and people have been waiting some features for very long…

Once bitten, twice shy. Moreover, although I agree Microsoft is making efforts to change [1], pro-Microsoft partisans make it clear much of this is due to the new CEO. What one CEO does, another can undo. GitHub's bus factor is now 1. I would much rather have seen them go public. They were losing money, but not, last I saw, at a rate that was absurd for building a SaaS business. Is there some reason to think they cou…

I think the biggest thing suggesting they couldn't have gotten into the black is the fact that they had been looking for a CEO for 10 months and still hadn't found someone. I'm not entirely sure why they couldn't find anyone, perhaps they were just being picky, but it certainly didn't look good.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#244

Post by SiVal »

cobookman wrote: post #200
johannes1234321 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Will Facebook/Google/Apple start pulling their code from GitHub? For these companies who owned GitHub hardly plays a role. They want to attract developers and go wherever the crowds go. If there is mass migration to mercurial-superhost.com they will follow. It's just an outlet. The question is more relevant for companies and communities who built their infrastructure on it and might worry for good or not so good re…

I think public code will still live on github, but I See FAANG 100% avoiding any private github repos from now on.

Bigger tech companies not only do not host important private source code on Github but won't even host on outsourced physical servers. Where I've worked (incl. well-known names), information that we wanted spread to the world could be hosted on trusted external systems (trust still mattered to keep it from being "edited"), but non-public info was always hosted inside a physical building that we owned watched 24/7 by human guards we employed.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#245

Post by kakwa_ »

ggregoire wrote: post #42
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…

Yes same here. I’m really surprised by all the Microsoft hate as if we were still in the 80-90’s. MS is one of the biggest open source contributors nowadays. It's also really weird how people idealize GitHub. Did they forget GitHub was not a non-profit association, they were losing money, they deleted users repositories on their own, they had management issues, and people have been waiting some features for very long…

Even with best intentions from both sides, acquisitions don't go well in a lot of cases.

It's quite common to have the following scheme:

1) nothing significant happens for 1 to 2 years, the big company slowly integrates the smaller one.

2) historical dev/ops starts to be tired of the heaviness of the processes and all the politics going on in the big organization. After 3 to 4 years, they start leaving, and knowledge begins slowly to get lost.

3) new features are slower to be pushed in production, often with major regressions.

4) after 5 years the service is becoming more and more unstable and/or is not evolving anymore.

5) after 7 to 10 years, the product is killed-off or put in limbo.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#246

Post by pritambaral »

leg100 wrote: post #35
BigChiefSmokem wrote: post #17

GitLab servers are very, very slow today.

Today? Rest assured, they have been very, oh very slow, for a long time. Their Twitter status feed and post mortem dialogue ad infinitum is proof enougb. GitHub has nothing to worry about just yet.

> they have been very, oh very slow, for a long time.

From a regular ($DAYJOB) GitLab.com user: this is hyperbole. GitLab.com is slower than GitHub.com, in general, but not "very, oh very" slow.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#247

Post by pritambaral »

Cofike wrote: post #137
BigChiefSmokem wrote: post #17

GitLab servers are very, very slow today.

Sounds like GitLab when I used it two or three years ago is the same as today. Downtime all the time where we lost access to code, slow browsing, etc.

To be fair, they're experiencing an exodus from GitHub right now. Such events are not the norm.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#248

Post by gardnr »

ry_ry wrote: post #90
peterwwillis wrote: post #40

What I really love about this is that M$ realize the product's users are tightly wound to the brand's identity, and are hostile to M$'s. They know they're buying a "lifestyle brand" and that they have to keep it hip and unencumbered by a corporate behemoth or it'll become worthless. When the new CEO has to make a public personal appeal to the users to keep them from jumping ship, that says something (though I'm not s…

I feel the same way about people who unironically write M$ to be honest. It's a counter-brand they've elected to champion, and more power to them. That said, it feels lazy and deeply mired in a Browser Wars-era IRC discussion about wether Netscape Navigator or Lynx is the way forward. Or any other, equally tedious, period of paeolithic tech history. Microdollaroft have been pretty well behaved recently, especially wi…

Said the kid that doesn't remember the SCO-Linux disputes

Re: Hello, GitHub

#249

Post by justinjlynn »

politician wrote: post #233
rmason wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously Microsoft doesn't want or need two open source editors. I think the smart move would be what I call the Adobe strategy. Github should announce that Atom has become an Apache foundation project. Github then says it will provide x number of developers for an initial three year period. Probably won't make everyone happy but it should defuse most of the angst.

Ah yes, Apache Foundation, the place where ambitious but under-resourced projects go to die. /s

You joke but, for the vast majority of projects, it's kind of true. It's gotten to the point where, if it's not out of incubator, I have a really hard time convincing any one of my colleagues to put any time into projects hosted there.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#250

Post by vxNsr »

braythwayt wrote: post #97
bad_user wrote: post #13

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…

> 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 history of PRs, all linked to the > profiles of their authors. Every single for-profit company works their ass off to build a "moat" around their business and to create switching costs,…

He made it pretty clear that there wasn't a moat that he needed to forge but rather the missing the community, that's not really something that anyone could build a tool to transfer...
Post reply on HN