671–680 of 716 posts
Many people will choose private then -> less public repositories. Github looses its essence.
I don't think so, If it's a public repository that means the owner have more confidence and willing to collaborate, which is a good thing. Also, free private repository -> more developers -> more repositories
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am confused by this sentiment. Wouldn't moving to another product (like bitbucket or gitlab) put you in the same boat (since they also offer free private repositories)?
GitLab's free private repos have the same feature set as their public ones. Not so with GitHub's, and this blog post hides that fact. https://github.com/pricing#feature-comparison
While I think this is a great move, don't forget that private repos also means no more free Travis CI. Gitlab CI however offers 2,000 build minutes a month with their integrated CI service. Even if your whole set up takes 10 minutes to build on CI, that's 200 builds a month which is plenty for an individual project that's on a private repo. In other words, I think Gitlab's free private repos + CI is still a better ch…
Github is a great UI that we all are familiar with and there is a huge community around it, which is great for OSS, but I have to say, I trust Gitlab more than I trust Github. I am a happy user of Gitlab for 3 years now, I have been using it for all of my private stuff and using it actively for around 10 projects at the moment, and I have seen the product change over time both visually and functionally. There are mul…
While I think this is a great move, don't forget that private repos also means no more free Travis CI. Gitlab CI however offers 2,000 build minutes a month with their integrated CI service. Even if your whole set up takes 10 minutes to build on CI, that's 200 builds a month which is plenty for an individual project that's on a private repo. In other words, I think Gitlab's free private repos + CI is still a better ch…
Github Actions is in private beta. From the little time I've spent with it, it could fundamentally change the way you interact with CI; its pretty different compared to normal CI products like Travis, Circle, etc. Primarily, each pipeline stage can directly reference other public Github repos, with no additional code on your part. This taps in to that community that only exists on Github; for example, to build a proj…
Until then, I'm sticking with Gitlab for private repos because I don't want to wake up one day with Github actions to find out that I need to start paying to regain access to CI.
I don't mind if it's premium only when it's released, but they should be clear about this up front. It kind of worries me that they didn't mention it'll be a free feature in the docs. That seems like something you would want to say up front if it were true. It would be really lame if they open it to everyone to beta test it and then switch it to paid for the general release without mentioning that.
While I think this is a great move, don't forget that private repos also means no more free Travis CI. Gitlab CI however offers 2,000 build minutes a month with their integrated CI service. Even if your whole set up takes 10 minutes to build on CI, that's 200 builds a month which is plenty for an individual project that's on a private repo. In other words, I think Gitlab's free private repos + CI is still a better ch…
Github is a great UI that we all are familiar with and there is a huge community around it, which is great for OSS, but I have to say, I trust Gitlab more than I trust Github. I am a happy user of Gitlab for 3 years now, I have been using it for all of my private stuff and using it actively for around 10 projects at the moment, and I have seen the product change over time both visually and functionally. There are mul…
Also wanted to share this feature we are currently working on, it allows you to remove unused tags from Container Registry, and we hope it will land with release 11.7 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/55978
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Revenue peaked in 2015 when he took over, and only got past that in 2018. So net 'going down' until 2018. Yes, the stock has risen quite dramatically during his time though. Even has revenues went down - wall street dramatically lifted his valuation. Contrast that with Ballmer, who consistently and reliably grew the company with solid numbers for over a decade, and was rewarded with a stock lift of 0. The stock lift…
Ballmer left a company that was a mess. He was boosting profits through repeated layoffs and price squeezing. It had just bought my former employer (Nokia's phone business) without a clear strategy. Windows Phone was already failing in the market due to a series of strategic blunders, arrogance, and poor product positioning and platform strategy. Windows 7 and 8 had largely flopped in the market with lackluster adopt…
I see no evidence for your statement.
Ballmer 4x-ed MSFT revenue during his tenure.
He made far more money for MSFT than Gates ever did, and his growth track record is better than Satya so far.
Ballmer pushed XBox, Azure, Office/Cloud, re-orged the sales teams. Increased revenues for all the other major product lines.
Bing and Mobile were a fail, but they did other things well, moreover, they're up against the top 2 companies in the world in Search and Mobile - no easy feat.
All of your points are descriptive, but they don't really represent huge materiality in terms of business outcomes.
MS was never losing developers.
It's 'OSS contributions' really don't make that much of a difference.
Revenue under Satya has been up and down, with no real progress for his first several years until 2018 (2015 being the watermark).
MSFT today was made by Ballmer, most of the things you indicated are good, but not hugely fundamental.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I’m reading the revenue chart correctly, 12.5 percent of their revenue was approximately 11 million dollars in 2016. At Microsoft, who is even going to notice that... There’s surely a goodwill factor and wider strategic benefits here beyond the relatively small amount of revenue - these individuals enjoying the free private repos will in many cases likely be future candidates for customers for the enterprise offer…
Comparing 12.5% revenues to a pay cut is not misleading at all. Unless there is some reason to believe that making individual accounts free will somehow also reduce costs in a material way. Seems to me it will likely increase costs significantly as many more users will flock to create free private repos. In fact, it's more like giving you a 12% percent pay cut and then asking you to commute further to work.
Yeah, I take that deal every day of the week.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, Microsoft realized that long ago. Gates and Balmer prolonged the inevitable through monopoly power, but Nadella has accepted the future and is "turning the aircraft carrier." It's amazing that Microsoft came back to life from being a zombie company. In hindsight, it was such a large zombie that it had sufficient time to change business models. Somehow Sears wasn't. There's a business school case study and tenure…
If by 'zombie company' you mean raking in massive amounts of money and growing spectacularly every year? [1] MSFT has changed in some positive ways, but since Satya took over, growth has been actually flat-ish to negative overall until 2018 (a good year). Paradoxically, MSFT stock was flat during the Ballmer years when there was rock solid consistent growth. The 'new MSFT' things is quite overrated in terms of what i…
Growth and/or stock market performance are often only indirectly coupled or lag by years better strategy, innovation, management, etc.
Unfortunately sometimes good decisions never cause growth, there’s no simple formula.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatever bad things you can say about Ballmer, he wasn't out to gut Microsoft. He simply made decisions that were short-sighted and insular. Well, and the review system (which caused a bunch of good people to leave for Google in Kirkland, and some other places). Once, I was doing an embedded system for a consumer product in the Xbox group. We started out trying to using Windows CE, and after three months of pushing t…
Wait, so are you telling us he did in-fact went out to gut Microsoft via his arrogance?
The Sears folks are pirates, they don't give a shit about Sears and just want to extract as much money as they can.
Big difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My point is what kind of "other remote" a typical FOSS project have these days? In the context of the original comment, think: "setup a /second/ remote" as the meaning. If the first 'remote' is github, the second remote could be gitlab, and so forth.
Ah ok, so you change Microsoft cloud for Google cloud... UAU... And what about PRs&c? Sorry for being rude but for me is unacceptable to depend on tons of proprietary stuff from a handful of vendors. Even personal websites that use Google Fonts, some JS framework directly from the "project" CDN (too hard to keep it on your disk, up to date) etc... We need to be interdependent or independent not dependent of few subje…
One can, if one chooses, setup a git repository on a spare PC in ones basement and have a "git repository" into which one or more collaborators can "git push" and "git pull" to/from.
In the context of the original post, to which you asked "what is another remote", the second (or third, or fourth) 'remote' can be "any git repository to which the individual has access".
Having a second remote does not, in an of itself, require that that second remote be one of the proprietary git hosting systems, nor require that it be one of the semi-proprietary or open source hosting systems. It could just as well be plain git running in repository serving mode on an old PC.
See the documentation for the "git http-backend" and "git daemon" commands that are built into the git distribution.