61–70 of 210 posts
Microsoft should just make Github open source. It would be a great PR move and an amazing build of trust. I don't know why Github was not open source to begin with. Why do companies still think source code is a big deal? This is not Google Search or some advanced AI.
Ever since I heard of "Monaco" the online code editor which is used in VSCode. I always assumed Microsoft will eventually come up with a completely online IDE >> deploy toolchain like a GitHub on steroids. I think this acquisition is pretty much all about that. Nobody seems to have mentioned this yet though, at least not that I have read of.
> That said, the GitHub team reports that the set of users who have migrated or closed their accounts is extremely small, and this is more than made up for by the surge of new signups and new interest in GitHub this week. It's interesting to hear this. If you were on HN the past week, it might have seemed from all the front page articles that GitHub was about to implode due to an an exodus to GitLab.
Microsoft should just make Github open source. It would be a great PR move and an amazing build of trust. I don't know why Github was not open source to begin with. Why do companies still think source code is a big deal? This is not Google Search or some advanced AI.
Please rethink the value of from PR vs. $7.5 billion dollars they paid in the acquisition.
LinkedIn: $26b
MineCraft: $2.5b
Github: $7.5b
> That said, the GitHub team reports that the set of users who have migrated or closed their accounts is extremely small, and this is more than made up for by the surge of new signups and new interest in GitHub this week. It's interesting to hear this. If you were on HN the past week, it might have seemed from all the front page articles that GitHub was about to implode due to an an exodus to GitLab.
> That said, the GitHub team reports that the set of users who have migrated or closed their accounts is extremely small, and this is more than made up for by the surge of new signups and new interest in GitHub this week. It's interesting to hear this. If you were on HN the past week, it might have seemed from all the front page articles that GitHub was about to implode due to an an exodus to GitLab.
Github is only a high profile Git peer. If it explodes someone just pushes up to a different repo hosting site or goes back to trading chagesets some other way.
Most (semi-)serious projects make use of this, which makes migration harder.
"Developers are independent thinkers..." He seems to be playing the typical corporate lackey role. His comments are all full of condescension, platitudes, and corpspeak. He sounds more like a PR person than a principled leader. He's saying exactly what he thinks his audience wants to hear. It's not surprising that he thrived as a Microsoft exec. That he's willing to make promises about GitHub's future is also telling…
Your comment is a significant misreading of his current statements as well as where he's come from. Yes, he's very skilled in the corporate world, but he's just as skilled in the open source world. You absolutely need to be awesome at both to be able to do the right thing as the CEO of GitHub. Check out his history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Friedman
He's not an open source developer with a great project that now leads GitHub. He's a corporate guy that now leads GitHub under Microsoft executives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, yeah, and I'm questioning why OP would "think" that. Just because you have an opinion doesn't make it reasonable.
So you think it's more reasonable to assume most of the migrating projects didn't mirror, but deleted themselves from Github with only a few days warning? That (IMHO) would point even more to it mainly being small, mostly 1-person projects where there's no community to consider.
>It's interesting to hear this. If you were on HN the past week, it might have seemed from all the front page articles that GitHub was about to implode due to an an exodus to Gitlab.
and the-dude said:
>I think most people mirrored instead of closing. Spin.
You changed that to
>I think most people (who migrated away from GitHub) mirrored instead of closing. Spin.
Maybe that's what the-dude meant, I don't know. The implication is also that a significant number of users migrated and mirrored, and we have no idea if that's the case. That is my point. You can assume that many who migrated would have mirrored, that's reasonable, but it's not reasonable to assume that a significant number of people are migrating away from GH due to the acquisition, which is absolutely what the-dude was implying.
I can see the source of confusion though; I did quote the "most people" bit and didn't touch specifically on the above until just now.
> That said, the GitHub team reports that the set of users who have migrated or closed their accounts is extremely small, and this is more than made up for by the surge of new signups and new interest in GitHub this week. It's interesting to hear this. If you were on HN the past week, it might have seemed from all the front page articles that GitHub was about to implode due to an an exodus to GitLab.
People will always put their own comfort in front of any real ideals or morals. That is, people talk the talk but don't walk the walk. You see it with all the idiots still using Facebook.
And yeah, that's a nice sentiment. But it doesn't require anything of you. What happens when that person _needs_ something. A house, a loan, a ride, etc. "Being there" is well and good. But it's the secular version of "thoughts and prayers".