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

471–480 of 671 posts

Re: Hello, GitHub

#471

Post by craftyguy »

BigChiefSmokem wrote: post #164
craftyguy wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those are meaningful contributions to existing platforms/projects that MS does not own outright. They're throwing code of the wall. MS's contributions to git are very light. Edit: clarify my point.

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/ Microsoft has had a vested interest in Git and Open-Source for a while now.

The Linux Foundation is a joke organization that companies use to push their own agendas in the name of "linux and open source", when in reality very few members actually care about it. It's a 'badge of honor', nothing more.

If you need further proof, observe that Oracle is on the list. There's not a company on Earth more hostile to FLOSS than Oracle. And yet there they are, and a "platinum" member at that. Lol.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#472

Post by cutler »

There are a lot of users on here who either don't remember Microsoft's hostility to Linux and open source or who want to bury their head in the sand. 3 words are all you need to know about Microsft - Linux patent racket: https://www.infoworld.com/article/3042699/open-source-tools/... .

As far as I'm aware nothing has changed. A leopard never changes its spots.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#474

Post by RussianCow »

wpietri wrote: post #456
maemilius wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Microsoft's goal is to become a better corporate citizen, isn't anything they do to progress on that goal "furthering their own interests"?

There's a difference between putting on a mask of citizenship because it's profitable and actually caring about the world beyond the size of one's wallet. Confusing the two requires confusing the meaning of "their own interests".

Is there, though? Maybe I'm just cynical, but I don't believe in the idea of "trusting" a corporation at all, because their default behavior (especially for larger companies) is to only care about the bottom line. Once you accept that everything a company does is for their own benefit (even if their actions happen to also benefit others) and learn to take each action at face value, I find it easier to evaluate the consequences of those actions.

The idea of trusting an entity that is designed to try to take your money seems silly and futile to me.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#475

Post by marssaxman »

sdesol wrote: post #315
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 think Microsoft is handling this really well. What is baffling for me, is how worried some people seem to be. If you understand the Git hosting space, you would know Microsoft tried to compete with GitHub and failed miserably. It is quite clear the value that GitHub provides is data and there is ABSOLUTELY no way Microsoft would want to disturb this. In fact, Bitbucket, GitLab and others should be concerned that…

I'm looking into Bitbucket right now, actually, and "unlimited private repos" is the first selling point listed on their pricing page (https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing). What I haven't been able to discover yet is what they charge for public repos, which are all I care about.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#476

Post by markmark »

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…

This is all about getting Azure in front of developers who aren't in the Microsoft ecosystem.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#477

Post by SiVal »

doctorsher wrote: post #448
electronvolt wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I wouldn't take SiVal's comment as ground truth. I think it conflates rules for general employees with rules for his friend, and mixes it with a dash of unfounded hyperbole (criminal charges?).

The code isn't available outside the building unless someone takes it outside, which they make clear is not only a fireable offense but might qualify as criminal. They made it quite clear: If you're in crunch mode, don't be tempted to just take a bit of work with you to get a bit more done on the long shuttle ride.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#478

Post by rmason »

maire wrote: post #440
rmason wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

RE> I believe Flex is either the second or third most successful project at Apache in terms of downloads. How can that be given that Adobe is killing the flash runtime?

The team has created a ActionScript to JavaScript compiler so it will have a future without the Flash runtime.

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/Flex+JS

Re: Hello, GitHub

#479

Post by markmark »

softwaredoug wrote: post #435
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…

They could be angels, this can still be harmful to devs. We could still be concerned about all of tech consolidating under 4-5 anticompetitive companies On that basis alone, not sure how anyone can cheer this acquisition

GitHub wasn't making anywhere near enough money to account for all the investment they took on, so they had to sell to _someone_. Better MS than Oracle.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#480

Post by voltagex_ »

Marysville wrote: post #463
rad_gruchalski wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand your comment about Netflix using AWS. AFAIR, Netflix is a reference customer for AWS. Every re:invent is full of Netflix people. Care to elaborate?

Netflix is paying money to its competitor. i.e. Amazon Prime Video.

Does Prime Video actually make money? It seems like a side project compared to some other Amazon stuff.
Post reply on HN