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

311–320 of 366 posts

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

#311

Post by rmc »

Buetol wrote: post #237
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..…

You can also use another instance, like https://framagit.org , which is hosted by an independent org who fights for Libre Software since many years.

All your links will point to gitlab.com, you'll have top change everything again. The problem is centralization.

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

#312

Post by rmc »

blub wrote: post #70
jlgaddis wrote: post #16

Since the announcement, I’ve been trying to figure out what the most evil uses of “telemetry” that could be incorporated into Github in order to invade user’s privacy are. I’ve had a few (small) ideas but I’m confident that Microsoft already has people much more evil^W^Wsmarter than me working on this very problem (if it wasn’t already figured out beforehand).

They also have LinkedIn. Microsoft realised relatively recently, like Google did a long time ago, that they can give away the sources to the non business-essential stuff and make money through services and exploiting user data. .Net core, a text editor, those are the trinkets that keep the naive developers happy and content that they support a company that is open-source "friendly". That's why open-source is no longe…

This is where the GDPR helps. It means personal data is much harder to monitize. and means you're allowed download all your data.

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

#313

Post by rmc »

adrianN wrote: post #180
fjsolwmv wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why FSF tried to move from GPL to AGPL. But companies are obviously not interested until they have a next gen business model and SaaS/PaaS is commoditized.

Your hear many people here on HN actively discouraging the use of the AGPL because it prevents software from being used by companies. Goes to show how well the PR departments work.

> it prevents software from being used by companies

To me, that's a benefit :)

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

#314

Post by daveFNbuck »

Pywarrior wrote: post #144
daveFNbuck wrote: post #130

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…

You could pull in all forks also.

I don't have control over forks people make of my projects. Luckily, this concern is more of a hypothetical for me, as only one person has forked one of my personal projects on GitHub. I'm much more concerned about stars and hyperlinks no longer leading to the real repo when people follow them.

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

#315

Post by kitsunesoba »

jenscow wrote: post #201
kitsunesoba wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chrome is absolutely the new IE... it’s just in the heyday stage instead of the “ancient barely supported monster” stage that IE was in when developers began to hate it. The need for greater variety in the spread of popular rendering engines is dire and real. Browser monoculture is dangerous and I refuse to use any browser that’s Chromium/Blink as my daily driver for this reason. I seek alternatives for sites that ob…

I disagree that Chrome it will become stagnated like IE. Microsoft had no desire to improve IE and make the web a more desirable platform than Windows. (I'd suggest it still doesn't) Google, however, directly benefit from the web being a better place, and they know first hand that a dominant browser can be toppled. And the competition is fierce, with MS back to bundling and it's so easy to switch browsers now that th…

Even if Chrome never stagnates, it’s not a good thing for it to be overwhelmingly dominant with competitors stuck in firmly the margins. It gives google too much power, regardless of its intentions. It might be more convenient for web developers (if I had a dime for every time I’ve heard of desires to ignore everything not chrome...), but what’s convenient for devs is rarely what’s best for users.

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

#316

Post by daveFNbuck »

keypress wrote: post #229
daveFNbuck wrote: post #130

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…

This is in part some naming annoyance. Bitbucket let you once use your own domains for repos. Which was nice as you could migrate if you wanted. The forks thing could be tackled. With a notification, something like I forked you. Or a code search engine which is clever enough to detect and link repos. The user management gubbins, is the normal irritation of user management and access control. The stars part is already…

I don't mind not getting notifications or having my stars tracked. I just want people to be able to easily star/fork my repo if they want to keep track of or personalize it. That's harder when it's a moving target.

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

#317

Post by jacksmith21006 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #283
stefs wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the problem here is that the self-interests of github and microsoft might differ fundamentally. github wanted to make money from their paid services to create a profit. microsoft couldn't care less about the money paid github accounts make (as long as it's not hemorrhaging too much), it's unlikely they'll get a ROI from paid accounts in anyones lifetime. they need github to increase their earnings elsewhere, e.g. by…

FOSS will interpret Microsoft as damage and route around it. GitHub is going to turn into the FOSS version of the MySpace wasteland. I'm sure GitLab and other alternatives are seeing a stampede of new sign-ups right now. The question isn't really what MS will do, because - as is often the case - it won't matter. MS bought Nokia Phone, trashed the company, flailed around dramatically for a while, and in the end nothin…

Looks like a pretty strong exit from GitHub to GitLab.

Just hope most go to a common place which appears it will be GitLab.

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

#318

Post by beagle3 »

pluma wrote: post #236
ramijames wrote: post #128

Microsoft kills everything it touches. Look at Skype.

Skype was acquired by MS in 2011. At that point Skype had already gone through the hands of eBay and several investors. Additionally -- unlike GitHub or LinkedIn -- Skype was acquired for its technology. Microsoft used Skype to replace both Windows Live Messenger and Lync. They integrated it into Windows and extended it with various features to fit their use cases. They already announced they will keep GitHub indepen…

> Skype was acquired for its technology.

No, it was not. The technology was NOT worth billions of dollars.

It was bought for the existing userbase and network effects. And rumours are that also for some payment-or-something-in-kind from the NSA, which wanted it to be run by a friendlier-to-the-NSA company.

There were quite a few competitors at the time, some with comparable firewall penetration ability and call quality, which could have been bought for a fraction of the price. But none had the ubiquity, userbase or network effects of skype.

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

#319

Post by daveFNbuck »

gaius wrote: post #164
daveFNbuck wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Customers and potential customers also use competing products, so you also need to use those to sell to, understand, and grow your customers. Maybe SAP uses their own software internally and they've all become power users that aren't bothered by the issues that you're having. Perhaps if they used competing products they'd have a better understanding of where theirs is lacking.

You can always spot software that is or isn’t used by the people writing it

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't use their own software. I'm saying that they shouldn't use it exclusively.

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

#320

Post by fjsolwmv »

chris_wot wrote: post #27
jlgaddis wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And when they still didn’t “get it”? It’s a great read (and good for a few laughs) for “nerds”, sure, but it still doesn’t explain to non-techies what Github is (besides “some thing that programmers use instead of e-mail”) — or, more importantly, why it’s worth $7.5B.

It does explain it. He wrote that “Git keeps track of changes in sets of files.”

That's true, but Microsoft already does that with VSS, so that's not what is interesting about Git or GitHub.
Post reply on HN