271–280 of 671 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you tell that people trust private company which was loosing money since the creation better than Microsoft with all of its reputation at stake?
Is it unfair that I keep thinking of the SCO–Linux dispute at the moment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes#Mic...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is my thinking as well. Do I bail ship to gitlab and support more open software, or do I try to stay centralized?
Personally, I'm not "bailing" from anywhere. I am however using this as an opportunity to rely on any one single place less . I'm in the process of mirroring my git repos on GitLab, and trying to think of a way to signify that both the GitHub and GitLab repos are "canonical", and that issues/PRs/contributions can happen at both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because people with closed source, the paying customers, now have to trust their potential biggest competitor with their source code ‽
So you tell that people trust private company which was loosing money since the creation better than Microsoft with all of its reputation at stake?
The worst case scenario with Github closing the door, assuming no heads up, is that you'd lose your issues and PR. You have your git history on a bunch of machines (your devs + you should really have a dedicated backup).
The worst case scenario with Microsoft having visibility of your "closed" source code is that they take a peek at it and implement a better faster more integrated version of them in their own product competing with you, or heck even copy/paste your code. What can you do about it? How could you prove it? Remember, they can afford orders of magnitude more number of lawyer hours than you.
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…
This is a willful misunderstanding of the word decentralised.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, it's way too early to pull out the pitchforks until they've had time to demonstrate their sincerity on tackling these issues (and failed).
By that time you will have a microsoft login to access github and that after 15 downloads you pay 9.99 for premium. Its time to get everything off Github right away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you tell that people trust private company which was loosing money since the creation better than Microsoft with all of its reputation at stake?
Yes. 100% yes. Microsoft didn't care about their reputation for a long time. They currently do, at least a little, but that could change back. Github was losing money, but that's pretty typical for SaaS businesses. I have no reason to think they couldn't have gotten to break-even. And if the can't get to break even, I have no reason to think Microsoft will subsidize them indefinitely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think public code will still live on github, but I See FAANG 100% avoiding any private github repos from now on.
They already did. Except maybe for test setups and to configure a project before announcing it. All those companies keep their privates private. GitHub is just a public showroom for them. Again this is different for other/smaller companies.
Nothing changes immediately for any of us, to me the biggest concern is what happens after those roadmapped projects have run through. What goes next on that roadmap, and will it stick to the principles I love about GitHub, or will it start to veer into Microsoft's territory?
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…
We will see what Nat Friedman does but Miguel de Icaza did have a bit of a falling out with the gnome community and started Xamarin where the developed a closed source IDE that didn't run on Linux. So a bit of a 180 he did there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
viral how? You think it's morally ok to just use others work without contributing back any improvements/disclosing it to make money?
I wasn't expressing my own opinion on such licenses; 'viral' is accepted terminology for licenses like the gpl that require derivative works to use the same license. However, if you would like an argument, then yes. Or, rather, I think it's morally ok for people to make software under any license they choose, including licenses that allow big companies to use their work. Personally, I use bsd-3 for most of what I wri…