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

301–310 of 671 posts

Re: Hello, GitHub

#301

Post by mandeepj »

hawski wrote: post #267
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 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 s…

Answers are here for you - https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2018/06/04/microsoft-github...

I'm posting them here for easy ref -

1. "Second, we will accelerate enterprise developers’ use of GitHub, with our direct sales and partner channels and access to Microsoft’s global cloud infrastructure and services. "

Above means - More revenue for MS.

2. "Finally, we will bring Microsoft’s developer tools and services to new audiences."

This also means - more revenue for MS

More answers here - https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https://c....

Briefing above ppt here - MS will report Github revenues as some part of Azure. They are looking for growth and diversification of income sources. Linkedin and this acquisition are steps in that direction.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#302

Post by annyui »

I'm happy that at least Google doesn't own GitHub. Microsoft seems like the best company to buy GitHub out of all the major tech companies.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#303

Post by ocdtrekkie »

snowwolf wrote: post #21
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’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...

I actually just made a bet with a friend on whether or not they'd switch GitHub over to Microsoft logins. My strong bet (that I put money behind) is that they won't. They're specifically acquiring this to win over developers and community, and they should hopefully know from the Skype transition how much negative perception that granted them.

Their absolute best bet is to sit on GitHub, feed it money, offer the paid features as an additional perk for MSDN subscribers through an account linking method, and call it a day. The developer goodwill they can buy being a good steward of GitHub far surpasses any other value they could extract from it.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#304

Post by SiVal »

hirsin wrote: post #279
SiVal wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not entirely true. Microsoft puts (almost? Yet to find anything that isn't) all our code on VSTS which is accessible remotely, without VPN. I've checked in a (very very minor docs) fix to the Windows code base from my Android phone over LTE.

That's amazing. Contrast that to my friend who works on code at Apple that's so guarded that he can't even access it from Apple HQ. He has to travel to his office in an unmarked Apple bldg several miles from HQ (in an unmarked van) and access the code from inside the bldg. Any attempt to work on his code outside that bldg, on the Apple employee shuttle for example, will result in immediate firing with possible criminal charges. Admittedly, that's not the usual Apple employee, but the contrast between that and Microsoft's, which may as well be hosted on a set of Chinese night market DVDs, is LOL-worthy.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#305

Post by trhway »

its good as it will spur a bunch of new GitHubs and innovation in that space. It is like a business case validation for investors. For example like Cruise acquisition spurred more self-driving startups. The times have changes and it isn't 90ies anymore when MS could buy/develop some soft and extinguish all competition in the related area.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#306

Post by dorfsmay »

hannasanarion wrote: post #276
wpietri wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not just a scummy breach of trust though, that's a blatantly illegal breach of trust. Source code is a trade secret. Copying it without permission is corporate espionage. People would go to jail if they tried. You are asserting that Microsoft's intentions are criminal.

I'm 100% sure that this is not their intention... But can you guarantee that this is not going to happen in the future?

All it takes is one rogue employee, and it could have devastating irreversible effects on a small startup.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_Kerviel#Unaut...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Leeson#Downfall

Re: Hello, GitHub

#307

Post by amarraja »

I remember watching the "screencasts" (they were gifs back in those days), of Nat working on Beagle [1]. Sadly it's a dead project now, however, it shaped my attitude as a developer - how can I write software that _helps_ people.

I am really excited to see what Nat and team bring to the table

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_(software)

Re: Hello, GitHub

#308

Post by rmason »

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

I've got a few friends that are still very involved in the Flex community which is now at the Apache foundation. Adobe if I remember correctly is still funding staffers to work on Flex many years later. I believe Flex is either the second or third most successful project at Apache in terms of downloads.
Post reply on HN