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

Hello, GitHub

natfriedman.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 671 posts

Re: Hello, GitHub

#661

Post by jexah »

notatoad wrote: post #636
jexah wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying, but I can't see your point. Company A doesn't have CEO. Company A gets acquired by Company B. Company B thinks it's a good idea for a company to have a CEO, and so provides an employee to take that role in Company A. It's not complex, not a coincidence, and absolutely not something that we should be worried about. It's striking that out of all of this, the new CEO is what you're worried about.

it's not a problem, it's fully what i would expect to happen in an acquisition. and like i said, Nat seems like probably a good choice for CEO. but it doesn't square with a commitment to keep GitHub independent from microsoft. if microsoft is appointing a CEO for GitHub, that's not independence by any normal or sane definition of the word "independent". "Microsoft made a good decision when they appointed a new CEO fo…

I believe you're making two assumptions, one of which is untrue, and the other isn't necessarily true.

The first being that it's a better indicator of independence to have no CEO than a Microsoft appointed CEO. The number of good CEOs that have experience running companies with hundred-million valuations is very low, as GitHub themselves experienced for months. Without a good CEO, chances are GitHub goes under (somebody needs to push the Azure integration, etc.), so Microsoft didn't really have a choice.

The second assumption is that Nat will necessarily run GitHub from a Microsoft-first perspective, as opposed to a GitHub-first perspective. This may be true, and it may not. I believe this is what they were referring to with regards to "independence".

Please clarify if you're not making either of those assumptions, and if you are, I'm happy to discuss your justifications. :)

Edit: Perhaps you just have a feeling, given Microsoft's history, that they will sink the boat, and you're trying to justify it through anything that you can find that is concrete. Personally I don't believe that GitHub will stay a completely neutral shrine of perfection, and my only justification is my feelings based on history. So if that is the case, I completely agree. The idea of appointing a CEO where there is none being non-independent, though, is clutching straws IMO.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#662

Post by scarface74 »

themacguffinman wrote: post #659
scarface74 wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft already offers free private git hosting, project management, build servers, etc through VSTS for up to five users.

Ok, but VSTS isn't GitHub. GitHub's UX is solidly above its competitors, and I would tend to agree that the primary reason for looking elsewhere is price.

Does github offer free project management, hosted Windows, Linux, Android and iOS builds, deployments to Azure and AWS, on prem CI/CD orchestration, hosted package management, ....

All of that is free for up to five users and it’s all private.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#663

Post by marssaxman »

yappadappadoo wrote: post #645
marssaxman wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm looking into Bitbucket right now, actually, and "unlimited private repos" is the first selling point listed on their pricing page ( https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing ). What I haven't been able to discover yet is what they charge for public repos, which are all I care about.

Bitbucket doesn't charge for public repositories - we can definitely do a better job of making that clearer on our pricing page.

Good to know, thanks!

Re: Hello, GitHub

#664

Post by chrisweekly »

Klathmon wrote: post #652
chrisweekly wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd recommend simply designating one as master, one as slave. Why try to appoint two captains of one ship?

Because having one as master and one as slave is exactly the problem i'm trying to solve here. I want both to be master, so that users who are comfortable on both platforms are willing to make contributions to the codebase, so that any one service/system going down won't stop development, and so that as the "community" migrates around different platforms they can always find the full version of the software. Recommen…

Sorry if my comments haven't been helpful. But I don't think the problem you're trying to solve is tractable. I'd be very interested to hear of a solution that doesn't rely on locking and is immune to conflicts.

You might fake it (and meet your stated goals) by maintaining a true master behind the scenes and syncing to two public slaves... (ie, forks you treat as peers, each with a "master" branch) but that still leaves neither of them truly "canonical" -- a designation of authority that would apply to the place where you'd resolve conflicts given simultaneous commits.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#665

Post by thesz »

sailingparrot wrote: post #268
thesz wrote: post #262

I guess he started with wrong note. He is developer since six - since 1983. This means his family was wealthy one. He also survived two years of Microsoft. Now even sceptical and lazy me thinks I have to move out of github. ;)

His family was wealthy, and he worked at Microsoft for two years, so you have to move out from GitHub? What are you even trying to say?

He is not representative of most developers, first (wealthy and corporate-politics resistant), and tries to present himself as one, second (how he introduced himself).

This means Github will be handled by non-developer who tries to pretend to be a developer. This means he lies, conspicuously or not. In both cases I cannot see him as smart enough and self-aware enough.

Given that, I think github will be mishandled and I also think I would be better off somewhere else.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#666

Post by sailingparrot »

thesz wrote: post #665
sailingparrot wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His family was wealthy, and he worked at Microsoft for two years, so you have to move out from GitHub? What are you even trying to say?

He is not representative of most developers, first (wealthy and corporate-politics resistant), and tries to present himself as one, second (how he introduced himself). This means Github will be handled by non-developer who tries to pretend to be a developer. This means he lies, conspicuously or not. In both cases I cannot see him as smart enough and self-aware enough. Given that, I think github will be mishandled and…

Nat Friedman is not a developer? Did you do the most basic google research before bashing him?

If Nat is not a developer, then not a lot of people are, this has to be one of the stupidest comments I have read.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#667

Post by TrailingDots »

Skype was a great app before Microsoft got its hooks into and ruined it. Now MickeySoft will ruin github with its idea of making it "better".

Good luck with that! Here comes the Blue Screen of Death again.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#670

Post by thesz »

sailingparrot wrote: post #666
thesz wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is not representative of most developers, first (wealthy and corporate-politics resistant), and tries to present himself as one, second (how he introduced himself). This means Github will be handled by non-developer who tries to pretend to be a developer. This means he lies, conspicuously or not. In both cases I cannot see him as smart enough and self-aware enough. Given that, I think github will be mishandled and…

Nat Friedman is not a developer? Did you do the most basic google research before bashing him? If Nat is not a developer, then not a lot of people are, this has to be one of the stupidest comments I have read.

Yes, I did my research and verified it just now (looked at his github). I was not and am not impressed.
Post reply on HN