Hello, GitHub

> Remember, these costs add up quite easy.

Some single developers are perhaps a bit spoiled. Other professions need offices, stores, work trucks, thousands of dollars in physical tools that they'll need to maintain and replace as they wear out. We need a computer and have the option of a $7/month subscription to perpetually-updated professional tools. $7/month doesn't cover the printer paper most professionals go through in a month. Software developers need a computer and that's about it, and some apparently find $7/month "uncompetitive" because that fee didn't come with sufficient feel-good about charitable giving or something. All the software and professional services I subscribe to as a single developer don't add up to the cost of maintaining and fueling the van my A/C repair guy shows up in, so I have to disagree that they add up quite easy.

I'm pleased that Microsoft has opened up, changed and grown so much in recent years. Congratulations to the entire GitHub team for making such a wonderful community and set of tools easily available, and for their successful acquisition. It will be fascinating to see where this goes - who would have imagined that a former heavyweight of proprietary software would achieve such a transformation?

I must ask the question now, though - is it time for a non-profit Github-like open source community with integrated source control / tools? Could that even exist due to the costs of running such a thing, and is it necessary? For example, it would be like if The Apache Foundation ran GitHub.

Or should we look into things like git over IPFS (or something similar) and try to go decentralized?

I have wrestled with the for-profit / not-for-profit conundrum my whole life, and I still do. Obviously, running such a utility / community costs money, so it is good to have one or more healthy companies supporting it. It should mean good things. But ultimately, both GitHub and Microsoft are primarily for-profit entities (although I know they both do a tremendous amount to support the not-for-profit space).

Perhaps Microsoft could even be the one to set up such a non-profit... like.. "The Microsoft Foundation for Open Source" or something similar. Knowing that the organization owning and managing such a utility and community is a non-profit - good or bad?

EDIT: ..perhaps like they have done with the .NET Foundation?

You're acting as if the opensource initiative in MS of late is down to Nadella and nothing else. It's much more a case of market forces changing and an acceptance of opensource within corporations.

I don't fully understand point 2.

Is just making GitHub better worth $7.5 billion dollars for Microsoft? It will stay independent for this pile of cash? Why they bought it? For prestige?

For me the answer is that it can't be independent for long as it was (with VCs on its back was it ever?). It will gain Live login, maybe they will integrate it so you could login with your GitHub credentials to your computer if you so desire. But that's hardly worth billions.

Maybe the better thing would be what others suggested - setup a non-profit that would run GitHub and all those big companies could put something in the jar. Certainly less than what was paid. But I know it can't work, VCs want their exit.

For me it's a same game for GitLab. Current situation probably will accelerate GitLab's burn rate so prepare for the next acquisition.

I’m happy it’s Nat.