Hello, GitHub • Hacker News Board

Re: Hello, GitHub

#501

Post by doctorsher » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 1:31 AM UTC

SiVal wrote: post #477

doctorsher wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fair enough. I obviously don't know your friend or his project, so I can't with certainty say anything about his situation. I viewed your post through a critical lens because the details given didn't match my experience or the experience of any of my old colleagues, and you are a second-hand witness.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#502

Post by scarface74 » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 1:31 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #190

ggregoire wrote: post #42

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…

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…

GitHub's success as an ongoing concern was based on their investors willing to keep giving them more money or alternatively the public market giving them more money until they could become profitable.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#503

Post by zeth___ » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 1:33 AM UTC

zokula wrote: post #489

Fnoord wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nat Friedman, although I was not familiar with him prior to this, seems like an ideal candidate to run GitHub. Nat Friedman is a legend in the open source community. He founded Ximian in '99 with Miguel de Icaza, who both meant a lot for the Gnome community (e.g. via products such as Ximian Evolution) and Mono (FOSS .NET for *NIX). They got bought by Novell where he also got a top position. Nat has been busy with F…

> Nat Friedman is a legend in the open source community. No not really, he and Miguel are known as sellouts and Microsoft shills/dickriders in the Linux community.

This is not controversial opinion Miguel is close to Satan in the free software wing of the community.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#504

Post by tmsldd » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 1:33 AM UTC

@natfriedman, thanks to come public and sharing with us. To summarize in one word: transparency. That’s what GitHub community expects from the platform and you are the key person to drive it. Microsoft has been increasingly open to the whole open-source idea, which is great. But coming to the point, please, understand the following concerns: 1 - There is without doubt a conflict of interest and trust issues on Microsoft hosting thousands of private repositories, where some potentially compete with Microsoft commercial interests; 2 - There are concerns that the platform would become a exclusive marketing weapon in the hands of Microsoft, eventually killing the spirit of openness and free competition. 3 - The developer community fears that Microsoft see them as “potential clients” and therefore as target to its products. The developer community doesn’t want to be monetizing neither be bombarded with Microsoft products ads. 4 - GitHub has always been a community driven and community centered platform. What will be the role of Microsoft as it changes from “one more user” to the owner of the platform? 5 - What is now business model of GitHub and how entangled is it with Microsoft? More than ever, and more than anything else transparency will be the key for the success of GitHub. I wish you lucky on the new task.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#505

Post by scarface74 » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 1:34 AM UTC

jodrellblank wrote: post #437

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #303

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…

It's already trivial to host on GitHub and deploy on Azure using Visual Studio Team Services - in your deployment pipeline you choose github as your source repository instead of the built in git repo that's part of VSTS. It works using web hooks just like every other CI/CD tool.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#506

Post by techsin101 » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 1:36 AM UTC

Klathmon wrote: post #64

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 agree, my biggest concerns are: 1. What is happening to Atom? I have tried VS code and don't really like it due to the difference in how the 2 systems are designed to work (Atom being more "plugins are king", VSCode being more "kitchen sink included by first-party"). I'd hate to see my favorite editor lose it's major backing. If MS makes a commitment to continue to develop Atom, or they work with someone else to "t…

> I agree, my biggest concerns are:

> 1. What is happening to Atom? I have tried VS code and don't really like it due to the difference in how the 2 systems are designed to work (Atom being more "plugins are king", VSCode being more "kitchen sink included by first-party"). I'd hate to see my favorite editor lose it's major backing. If MS makes a commitment to continue to develop Atom, or they work with someone else to "transfer" development over to them in a way that's not half-assed, it would go a LONG way toward solidifying the trust they are trying to build (at least to me).

> 2. How will other companies who are hosting on GitHub react to this? Will Facebook/Google/Apple start pulling their code from GitHub? Will we go back to having to learn how to contribute to each project individually?

> There's definitely major benefits for diversity in this area (meaning not having the vast majority of projects on one platform), but I'm hoping we (as developers in whole) don't throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

> GitHub has by most accounts helped bring in a renaissance of open source software. It's never been easier to contribute to FOSS at any level, and I'm hoping we don't lose that as everyone diversifies where they host their source code...

I started with sublime, went to atom, went back to sublime, and finally moved to vscode.. trust me you can't go wrong. It has everything and extensions.

It's everything I wished for.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#507

Post by foo101 » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 1:37 AM UTC

electronvolt wrote: post #403

shubb wrote: post #375

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…

I am going to agree with what doctorsher said in response to your comment. I can confirm that what SiVal said is not a typical experience in Apple.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#508

Post by scarface74 » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 1:37 AM UTC

sdesol wrote: post #283

fishywang wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It helps smaller players (Gitlab, etc.) to break the monopoly of Github Or do the opposite. If Microsoft decides to make private repos on GitHub free, I can see VERY big issues for other players. I suspect more people use GitHub alternatives for cost reasons, rather than ideological ones.

Microsoft already offers free private git hosting, project management, build servers, etc through VSTS for up to five users.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#509

Post by baldfat » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 1:37 AM UTC

zeth___ wrote: post #498

baldfat wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean from 2011 when Microsoft had totally different management and business model? I don't see the Steve Ballmer Microsoft has much bearing on today's Microsoft. Also it wasn't the Microsoft Account change as much as the they had the weird MS Store or Local account sign in options. I removed the Store sign in and only used local and had no issues. Am I missing something?

Jesus Christ. Is everyone here a teenager? Microsoft in the 80s might bot be a valid comparison today, but something that happened 6 years ago is barely yesterday. Institutions do not change that much that quickly. Microsoft 15 minutes ago isn't the Microsoft of today is just as true a statement and one just as vacuous.

I'm closer to 50 and certainly not a teenager. Yes, Steve was the issue and his style was old fashion. There is no going back once you open up the shed. Why do people continue to want to punish a company for their past when their present has been so good? To keep punishing them and not rewarding them for their good deeds?

P.S. I thought the whole anti-OpenSUSE movement was also plain old stupid.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#510

Post by thelastidiot » Tue, Jun 05, 2018, 1:39 AM UTC

Who wants their pull request comments to be used as metadata for Microsoft to benefit from knowing what each software developer under the sun is working on at any time? Didn't we just face the same abuse of leverage personal data from facebook? I will privilege my communication either private or professional by refraining to use both github and facebook.