651–660 of 671 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In software the "authoritative" aspect of the definition is crucial. How can two different endpoints both be authoritative? What happens if they differ?
Then people will be confused, which is why I'm exploring options to ensure they stay in-sync.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then people will be confused, which is why I'm exploring options to ensure they stay in-sync.
I'd recommend simply designating one as master, one as slave. Why try to appoint two captains of one ship?
I want both to be master, so that users who are comfortable on both platforms are willing to make contributions to the codebase, so that any one service/system going down won't stop development, and so that as the "community" migrates around different platforms they can always find the full version of the software.
Recommending simplifying a process to the point that it no longer solves the problem it's trying to solve isn't helpful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don't agree that their present is good.
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…
Linkedin? It maybe ok now, but to see who in the network clicks on you and more recruiters... at a prime membership of $30/mo? With the same opptys as Indeed? And with more spam and solicitations? Aside from Linkedin being on the edge of being another FB+Tinder.... Well, I think we see where it's going by year end of 2019. Wouldn't be surprised if it gets engineered into irrelevance too.
As for these new managers like Friedman: they'll will hold the FOSS torch for a year, get frustrated by internal politics and leave likely.
MS will likely listen to the community, but it's to exploit them into MS products, mainly Azure. And of course the community will be smaller than today. No way MS would abandon MSVS/TS--much like Oracle: too much invested and a good size community.
Can somebody change the title to "GitHub is joining Microsoft and a former GNOME developer will become the new CEO" or something like that? "Hello, Github" doesn't say anything...
"SCM/CM is not free as in beer"
Really want git? Hire a CM mgr/team to manage your code. Been that way before 2010 (yes, it did suck). Doesn't matter if it's done in-house or out-house.
What does M$ bring to the table other than a giant pile of money? How does this giant pile of money serve the users of github?
(2) MS brings a huge team of lawyers that will exploit the licensing of FOSS (all favors), that will enable #1
Give MS credit, they are one of the smart guys in the room, and I see the tcpip stack fiasco all over again.
Github was about meritocracy? Right. It was just social coding, merits got pushed to the wayside when the VCs came in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
We don't know how far they were from being profitable. But even unprofitability is not a big problem these days. E.g., Okta IPOed in the red with explicit plans to keep losing money for the foreseeable future. Github was making over $200m/year, and was poised for strong growth in enterprises as they got with the times. I expect they could have gotten to GAAP profitability whenever they needed to. But they should have…
The only way that you guard against being an acquisition target is to remain private and not take money from outside investors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anything that came out after vi is just another editor.
I very much share the sentiment and I’ve been using Vim (recently Neovim) pretty much exclusively for the last ~20 years. But VS Code “just works” to such an extent that I’m seriously tempted to use it.
This was me basically 100%. If you're doing JS development, VSCode gives you so much out of the box it's hard to bring myself to even attempt to configure Vim to do all that, even if it is ""totally possible."" I miss the advanced text manipulation capabilities from vim (along with a few other things) but the upside of VSCode is just too great.