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

271–280 of 366 posts

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

#271

Post by sbhn »

sergiosgc wrote: post #242
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 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 mon…

Microsoft successfully pushed internet explorer to the front by making it cheaper and more accessible than Netscape. If they didn’t, the internet may have still lacked competition today and you’d still be paying money for Netscape. The foresight and competition that Microsoft brang to the browser market was probably the most significant factor for the adoption of the internet by the whole world back in those days.

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

#272

Post by bollockitis »

fetbaffe wrote: post #115
reacharavindh wrote: post #107

The best case for GitHub would've been for Redhat to acquire them :-( Just feeling sad for what has happened. Microsoft is in it for business. Talking about "change of heart" for a company is bullshit. It's all associated with the business model one way or the other. RedHat would've been the best model. Imagine. Buying GH, open sourcing it, selling a self-hosted version of it for paid support....

Redhat? Company that is currently infiltrating every Linux distro with systemd bloatware? No, thanks.

It's not really fair to call it bloatware. Bloatware serves no purpose other than to sucker users into paying for something they either don't want or don't need. systemd serves a purpose, has benefits for the user, and doesn't ask for money or push ads.

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

#273

Post by ionised »

digitalzombie wrote: post #96
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?

I think the original comment is trying to convey is that perhaps developers should be wary of goodwill. Microsoft have done this in the past. They actively eat the browser market share with IE and left it alone after being the monopoly in web browser. This forced Netscape to become Mozilla. They also tried to be the gateway and believe OS is the gateway for all program and was left in the dust with web app and web se…

Beware of Microsoft bearing gifts...

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

#274

Post by ionised »

ethomson wrote: post #145
some_account wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft is forcing employees to use Microsoft tools when there are better ones to solve the problem. Read that again and think about the culture they have at Microsoft, then think about the open source culture if it's the same. Do Microsoft embrace open source?

As a Microsoft employee, I use Mac, Linux and Windows regularly. I write code in vim. I write quick-and-dirty scripts in Perl or Ruby. I’ve shipped code in Java, C and C#. I browse the web in Chrome. I push to GitHub and VSTS. Microsoft doesn’t force employees to use Microsoft tools; Microsoft forces employees to think critically, empathize with our users and build great experiences for them.

empathize with our users

So why isn't this reflected in their actions?

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

#275

Post by gmueckl »

s3m4j wrote: post #246
kbob wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ?

By changing the system to internalize extra costs of products with low lifetime. If companies can earn more by building products that last decades instead of years, they will do it. To make this work, you'd probably need to come up with a pretty convoluted taxation scheme.

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

#276

Post by abduhl »

dbingham wrote: post #260
wildmusings wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You've got it backwards. They are able to make a living happily doing their craft because there is a portion of the market that values their craft. They didn't choose their craft because they recognized their was a market for it. They chose their craft out of love of the craftsmanship. Arguments like this fundamentally misunderstand human psychology. And this is why the economic model of the "rational man" is fundame…

Lol this post shows an amazing savior complex. These poor altruistic artists just want to work for meagre amounts and no profit but thankfully heroes like you appreciate their craft and are unwilling to let them peddle their wares for anything lower than a healthy profit margin.

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

#277

Post by dragonwriter »

hobofan wrote: post #148
dragonwriter wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google acquiring Gitlab is very inevitable. From the rest of your post, I think you mean “...very much not inevitable.”

No. If the portfolio company wants to be acquired by Google, then taking the network they get via GV certainly makes that route easier for them. If the portfolio company decides if acquisition by another tech giant is the better route, they are free to do that and GV won't sabotage that deal. AFAIK there have been GV exits to all of the big Google competitiors.

Except for the “No”, that whole description is consist with “not very inevitable”.

“Inevitable” means “unavoidable", but what you've described is “possible, and maybe slightly more probable than if it wasn't a GV-backed firm, but by no means guaranteed.”

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

#279

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

sbhn wrote: post #271
sergiosgc wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 mon…

Microsoft successfully pushed internet explorer to the front by making it cheaper and more accessible than Netscape. If they didn’t, the internet may have still lacked competition today and you’d still be paying money for Netscape. The foresight and competition that Microsoft brang to the browser market was probably the most significant factor for the adoption of the internet by the whole world back in those days.

I never, ever paid for a version of Netscape. Hardly anyone did.

I - like everyone - paid a huge cost in wasted time and non-existent security when I tried to use IE or develop a site compatible with it.

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

#280

Post by jmkni »

bad_user wrote: post #46
kumarvvr wrote: post #29

I am a developer, use git, but don't use too much GitHub. I am genuinely curious, are the users of GitHub really that tied in to the site? Is the cost of moving to another platform, really that difficult??

> I am genuinely curious, are the users of GitHub really that tied in to the site? For open source projects of multiple contributors, yes, because that's where the community is, along with all relevant traces, e.g. issues, comments, PRs, all linked to their user's accounts. I've seen people here suggest that GitLab's import tool is pretty good in importing the history of issues. It's also a copyright lawsuit waiting…

If all of these open source projects move from Github to Gitlab, won't Gitlab face the same business problems (ie. how do we make this profitable?)
Post reply on HN