441–450 of 671 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm more interested in how companies with private repos on GitHub react.
Especially those that compete with MS or their subsidiaries. But then again, Netflix uses AWS, so who knows?
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.
We would definitely never store our proprietary code on systems run by anyone else, regardless of who runs/owns them.
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.
FAANG, I've never seen this before! Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google?
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…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
If they are merely yielding to market forces, then that's not much of a comfort. Github was a leader in this, and Microsoft's customers have a strong bias toward followers and laggards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm more interested in how companies with private repos on GitHub react.
Companies that complete with MS still use Windows, Sharepoint, Office 365, and OneDrive. Microsoft isn't going to go around snooping competitors' source code any more than they are going to go around snooping competitors' email.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Microsoft has you use a Microsoft account to sign into Windows itself; I think they will merge Github in somehow. They might be trying to win over developers, but they'll want to cross-sell to MS ecosystem developers as well. Starting with "any existing Microsoft account is now a valid Github login". Then maybe "you can more easily use VS (or VS Code) with Github and deploy to Azure, if you use a Microsoft account wi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds proportionate if a state might go after the code. For example phone encryption might be a big prize for the Chinese or even American government. Microsoft actually hand over OS code to states regularly for certain contracts so I figure they don't need to protect most of thier code like that.
I disagree. Phone encryption should ideally be open source-able and it's security should rely as entirely on a device specific key as possible. I think this makes more sense for a secret project (e.x. the next iPhone), but honestly as a security person it seems overkill for anything outside national security responsible code, like state sponsored malware. I also find it strange that the code is apparently somehow acc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm more interested in how companies with private repos on GitHub react.
Companies that complete with MS still use Windows, Sharepoint, Office 365, and OneDrive. Microsoft isn't going to go around snooping competitors' source code any more than they are going to go around snooping competitors' email.
I don't expect Microsoft, as a company, "to go around snooping competitors' source code any more than they are going to go around snooping competitors' email" or Azure infrastructure or code editor or putting loggers in peripherals or any other tinfoil theories.
I _do_ expect some companies to reconsider their policies in light of the acquisition and decide that other options make more sense for them for numerous reasons, including but not limited to not wanting to hand (even more) money over to a competitor for a service they don't necessarily need Microsoft to provide to them, or if they suspect Microsoft will significantly change the existing ToU/ToS in ways those companies would rather not deal with.
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.
Of course, Microsoft was famous for their dirty pool tactics in the past, so it's not irrational to worry that they'd return to them. E.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation#Private