301–310 of 366 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And are they not expected to make some product announcements at this conference?
I guess it depends how you define "products," but if we're talking hardware then WWDC as a product announcement platform is a relatively recent phenomenon. It is a developers conference, after all.
In 2017 it was iMac Pro, HomePod. In 2016 it was Apple Watch Updates. In 2015 it was El Capitan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you never paid, well that’s because you entered the scene after Microsoft’s commoditising effect of the browser market had taken effect. You now had a choice.
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…
Bud Light might not be the most flavorful beer, but have you ever tried the original Budweiser? You know it's actually pretty darn good. And when you compare Bud Light to truly bottom-market beers, you begin to see the value of Budweiser's offering. Also, I don't know how many foreign countries you've visited, but a lot of them really desperately need a Bud Light just to give the local brewers some real competition. Some of the beers I had were just bad.
I can understand if you don't want to consume mass-market products, but really, you shouldn't just dismiss something because it looks big to you. These things solve real problems that people have, at real scale. Your local brewer might have great beer, and your local butcher might have great meat, but you know what would happen if everyone was at the mercy of local business? Everything would be 4x more expensive and wages would be half as much. Just like it was before those brands emerged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All companies that embrace open source do it because it's good for business. It's a seemingly unlimited resource that accounts for billions (made up number, feels reasonable) of dollars of unpaid labor. It was always stupid to be against OSS from a business perspective and so long as developers hand over their IP on a platter it always will be - Microsoft would be really stupid to turn away free money, and they seem…
The idea that open source involves “handing over ip on a platter” is what’s stupid here. The vast majority of open source code is developed on the job. The fact that it’s open source means that the developer can take it with them when they leave and possibly even get some name recognition from it. If it was closed source, the developer would be handing it over on a platter to their employer, never to be seen again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah except the implication is that it's at the expense of other players, not that they want to simply join the ecosystem and contribute things that everyone can use with low barriers to exit -- the antithesis of open source. Some companies just join, donate hard work and earn good will without the expectation to cash in with their platform play. No one has a problem with any company trying to improve it's relationsh…
Almost every company works this way. They kind of are okay with the world growing but they want to help themselves in what they are really doing. Like hiring interns, it's mostly a way to get 'a really long interview'. It's not really about helping the interns to grow that much.
Let's use Google's Kubernetes as an example -- it's a fantastic tool that doesn't require use of their ecosystem -- so open in fact that both Azure and AWS are spinning up their own hosted versions. Many of the architectural/organizational pieces are non-trivial as well, years of work at google went into it, and they open sourced it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You are conflating self-interest with greed. That is a great mistake in trying to understand Adam Smith. They are not the same thing. Values, ethics, morals... are part of self-inrerst for lots of people.
The difference between "the old Microsoft" (monopolistic, openly insulting/abusive) and "the new Microsoft" is like the difference between colonialism and neocolonialism. - Colonialism consisted in annexing territory, forcing them to use your flag, sing your anthem, and work for you under penalty of violence. - Neocolonialism consists into forcibly indebt countries, so they direct all their productive efforts into pa…
You should try enabling snapshots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buy a $5/mo VPS and self host your repositories? It’s really not that hard.
And spending how many hours a month maintaining it and applying updates and security patches and setting up monitoring and dealing with downtime? The promise of these hosted services isn't the free storage/servers, its the maintenance of them. We're running our own private GitLab server but we thought long and hard before doing it.
Looks like GitLab puts out one release a month. Not a big deal. One day a month you can roll out the latest and greatest if you really want to. I probably wouldn't even do it that often, depending on what's included.
As far as all the underlying stuff, depending on what Linux distro you pick it should be pretty self maintaining nowadays for everything that's required to self host GitLab. nginx, PHP, etc. will all self update with your package manager of choice.
> setting up monitoring and dealing with downtime?
If you're buying a VPS you shouldn't need to worry about these. Any decent host will make sure your VM is up and have a high enough uptime to be solid for any use case short of enterprise. If you're an enterprise you might want to spend more than $5/mo.
> We're running our own private GitLab server but we thought long and hard before doing it.
Well that's up to you but it's really not hard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cost to copy a repo over is low, but you lose all the social aspects. You don't copy over forks or stars. People who want to fork your repo and make pull requests need to sign up for a new service. Old links to your repo on GitHub won't work anymore. I copied my personal projects to GitLab today and that was very easy to do but I'm not sure what to do about the GitHub version for the one that had a little popular…
I did the same. I'm replacing the README on GitHub with "Moved to https://gitlab.com/.. . and a description of what the software does. If people finds it interesting they will follow the link. A fork between services becomes more complicate but not so much: git pull from GitLab and git push to GitHub or whatever. Everybody knows how to do it. Right, one loses the "fork" link between the two repositories but really, w…
For the stars, they presumably did it to get update notifications. I guess they'll get a notification if I update the README, and they can decide what to do about that. I'm making things just a little bit harder for each of these people though.
Forks are even easier to maintain than you're describing. You just need to do a change the url for your upstream. The issue for me is that I have several forks of other peoples projects and in almost every case it's because that's required to make a pull request. For each of these projects that moves, they're multiplying the small effort by the number of people who need to move their forks and/or learn how to make pull requests on the new service.
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…