Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 366 posts

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#241

Post by nullify88 »

reacharavindh wrote: post #209
cthalupa wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just trying to ask why Redhat is always blamed for Systemd Probably because Lennart Poettering is a Red Hat employee and wrote systemd while working for them? Not a comment on whether systemd is good or not, but... the author being paid to write it as an employee of the company is a reasonable reason to believe they are responsible for it's creation.

But, my real contextual ask was Why RedHat is blamed for Systemd in Linux Ecosystem... Sure, a RedHat employee built something that Redhat wanted for their major Linux distribution. Why does the community direct hate at RedHat for it being everywhere? If it is deemed as not good by the community, the distributions are free to develop alternatives...

IIRC, Upstart was briefly used by distros before systemd came on to the scene. It's stay was short though as distros began migrating to systemd.

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#242

Post by sergiosgc »

mdpopescu wrote: post #200
notveryrational wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing where they are going to gas all the developers or something. Nope. It's more about priorities and intentions. Microsoft doesn't care about the developers. It cares about having the dominant platform. It recognizes that its image makes that difficult. The GitHub acquisition: Microsoft didn't suddenly get more beautiful. It put on a mask. It will kill GitHub - or at least let it flounder - if that's what's best…

> Microsoft doesn't care about the developers. It cares about having the dominant platform. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." (Adam Smith.) I don't trust benevolent people. I trust self-interest. I don't need to offer my undying allegiance to Microsoft - I can like them as long as they do things that benefi…

> I don't trust benevolent people. I trust self-interest. I don't need to offer my undying allegiance to Microsoft - I can like them as long as they do things that benefit me, and dislike them when they don't.

Sound logic, were it not for the fact that you may be trapped by the time you dislike Microsoft. Given Microsoft's history, it's a risk I will never take. I don't trust them, never will.

We nearly avoided a monolithic web in the browser wars. Microsoft pushed, successfully, Internet Explorer to be the only game in town. You didn't write websites against the standard. You wrote them to run on MSIE.

Mozilla, Google, the iphone and MS's hubris made IE 6 so noncompetitive that the web evolved past that blockage. It was luck, and we must recognize the near miss. The open Internet could have ended up closed and a lot worse. We almost ended up writing webapps in Activex.

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#243

Post by tomxor »

sleepychu wrote: post #222
amelius wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I'm curious what kind of data would be shared on the federated protocol. Why can't projects be independent?

I think primarily identity and git locations. I want stuff like the issue tracker/merge request dialog to be consistent across the federation (and of course for projects elsewhere in the network to be able to be the source for those merge requests) I don't want an account on everybody's git{lab,hub,ea,xxx} instance I want a single identity that people can trust is me. I want a way to discover and index other projects…

> I don't want an account on everybody's git{lab,hub,ea,xxx} instance I want a single identity that people can trust is me.

I know blockchain is excessively overhyped, but to my limited understanding this appears to be a good fit...

Look at how cryptocurrencies work, a wallet is singular (i.e your identity), exchanges and mining pools are numerous and independent (hosts and services for git repos).

The vital part to make this work is a specification for storing the social aspects of collaborating on these platforms in a git repo itself - it can definitely be done, git is so flexible, it doesn't have to interfere with the project code or even need to be present in the visible tree of any branch - but we need that for interchangeability. This first step could be made before figuring out how to make neatly interacting network to add portability to existing platforms.

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#244

Post by bad_user »

oblio wrote: post #219
bad_user wrote: post #129

These threads are so funny — let me do a TL;DR: - " Microsoft does this and that " - " Oooo, that's not fair, Google has been doing it too " - " Patents " - " Oooo, that's not fair, Oracle has been doing it too " - " Privacy " - " Not fair, Facebook has been doing it too " Predictable arguments that for the purposes of judging Microsoft are irrelevant. Look, we all know that companies are meant to turn a profit. Peop…

So you mean there can be no redemption, ever? Kind of a harsh perspective... By this logic Germany, Italy and Japan should have been nuked forever.

Germany, Italy and Japan have paid war reparations and suffered both during and after the war. That's probably the dumbest comparison I've ever heard.

But to answer, yes, if I were alive and if I would have suffered through the war like my grandparents before me, I couldn't have forgiven them as it would be my prerogative. So what can I say, I guess Microsoft will have to wait for those alive during the Halloween Documents to be either dead or really old.

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#245

Post by ebbv »

arthurfm wrote: post #90

With Google recently investing $20 million in GitLab [1] and helping them migrate from Azure to Google Cloud Platform [2][3], what are developers going to do when Google inevitably acquires GitLab? Move their repositories back to GitHub, switch to BitBucket or something else entirely? [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/09/gitlab-raises-20m-series-c... [2] https://venturebeat.com/2018/04/06/why-and-how-gitlab-abando..…

Buy a $5/mo VPS and self host your repositories? It’s really not that hard.

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#246

Post by s3m4j »

kbob wrote: post #223
toomanybeersies wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can believe that it is the best selling watch in the world. People don't buy many watches, because they last a long time. Last time I bought a watch was 7 years ago, and it still works fine. It's probably got another 3 years before I need to change the battery. I think the last time my old man bought a watch was some time in the 80's or 90's.

> People don't buy many watches, because they last a long time. Smartwatches can fix that problem. Obsolete in 1 year, battery failure in 2 years, incompatible with app ecosystem in 5 years.

How do we fix the problem of people seeing a problem in selling long lasting products ?

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#247

Post by [deleted] »

notveryrational wrote: post #91
staticassertion wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kept reading, waiting for the insidious part. So what you're saying is that Microsoft has a company wide strategic vision to improve its relationship with developers? Did you leave some part out?

Nothing where they are going to gas all the developers or something. Nope. It's more about priorities and intentions. Microsoft doesn't care about the developers. It cares about having the dominant platform. It recognizes that its image makes that difficult. The GitHub acquisition: Microsoft didn't suddenly get more beautiful. It put on a mask. It will kill GitHub - or at least let it flounder - if that's what's best…

[deleted]

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#248

Post by dumbneurologist »

dbingham wrote: post #240
mdpopescu wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Microsoft doesn't care about the developers. It cares about having the dominant platform. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." (Adam Smith.) I don't trust benevolent people. I trust self-interest. I don't need to offer my undying allegiance to Microsoft - I can like them as long as they do things that benefi…

I don't trust self interest. Especially not in my butcher, brewer, or baker. Pure self interest gets you McDonalds, Bud Light, and Debi cakes. I consume exactly none of those things and have no desire to consume any of those things. They taste terrible, are bad for me, and the companies themselves are generally bad for their communities and the world. A good butcher, brewer, or baker is driven by craft first - care f…

People who care about their craft are still driven by self interest: it's just that their internal value/utility puts a higher weight on the craft itself: since they get more out of the process of creating things that have craftsmanship, they are not distracted by the opportunity to make 5 cents more per loaf (or whatever).

> That's who I trust. Never the behemoth driven by fiduciary duty and self interest.

Trust is orthogonal to craftsmanship.

> Adam Smith's philosophy is nearly 250 years old and predates the modern industrial revolution. It's time we stop putting it on a pedestal.

It's less a philosophy than an understanding/insight regarding human behavior. You might as well say "it's time we stop putting newtonian physics on a pedestal", to the extent that both are reasonable models of human behavior, and are helpful in many, many real-world situations.

Arguing that people "shouldn't" behave according to Smith's expectations is going to be about as successful as arguing they shouldn't fall when they jump off a ladder.

> I consume exactly none of those things and have no desire to consume any of those things.

Nor do I, but many people do, and that decision makes them different than me, not less than me.

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#249

Post by Applejinx »

arthurfm wrote: post #90

With Google recently investing $20 million in GitLab [1] and helping them migrate from Azure to Google Cloud Platform [2][3], what are developers going to do when Google inevitably acquires GitLab? Move their repositories back to GitHub, switch to BitBucket or something else entirely? [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/09/gitlab-raises-20m-series-c... [2] https://venturebeat.com/2018/04/06/why-and-how-gitlab-abando..…

Dunno. The thing is, Microsoft knows they are ruthless. The thing that worries me about Google is, they are completely inaccessible, exist in a bubble and think they're the hero.

Okay, three things.

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#250

Post by wildmusings »

dbingham wrote: post #240
mdpopescu wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Microsoft doesn't care about the developers. It cares about having the dominant platform. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." (Adam Smith.) I don't trust benevolent people. I trust self-interest. I don't need to offer my undying allegiance to Microsoft - I can like them as long as they do things that benefi…

I don't trust self interest. Especially not in my butcher, brewer, or baker. Pure self interest gets you McDonalds, Bud Light, and Debi cakes. I consume exactly none of those things and have no desire to consume any of those things. They taste terrible, are bad for me, and the companies themselves are generally bad for their communities and the world. A good butcher, brewer, or baker is driven by craft first - care f…

>Especially not in my butcher, brewer, or baker. Pure self interest gets you McDonalds, Bud Light, and Debi cakes. I consume exactly none of those things and have no desire to consume any of those things. They taste terrible, are bad for me, and the companies themselves are generally bad for their communities and the world.

Whoever you do buy your food from has recognized there’s a portion of the market that values what you do and is happily selling it to you, out of their own self-interest.

I, for one, like McDonalds and sometimes prefer a Bud Light.

Post reply on HN