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

GitHub’s engineering team has moved to Codespaces

github.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 704 posts

Re: GitHub’s engineering team has moved to Codespaces

#691

Post by maccard »

rhn_mk1 wrote: post #687
maccard wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made this comment elsewhere [0], but by this logic anyone who builds an ecosystem for an open source tool should be accused of the EEE strategy. > There may be a time where you must use Github CLI instead of a "standard" git client to interact with Github projects So we're accusing MS of a slippery slope based on a phrase from 25 years ago, which there is absolutely zero proof or indication of them pursuing in the…

In practice, it doesn't matter what an "actual" extension looks like, but how your product is viewed by customers, because those are the ones you want to lock in. And judging by HN comments, to very many people, Git means Github, making it an extension, if not outright a synonym. And their extending has nothing to do with open standards, which is worrying due to the potential to create lock-in.

By that logic, anyone who builds a product around an open standard is guilty of EEE. A web browser that implements a sync feature, an XML editor that implements syntax highlighting , an RSS reader that implements link previews all "embrace" open source standards and "extend" their core open standards with non-standard features, which is _exactly_ what github have done. They have been excellent players in the git ecosystem.

Re: GitHub’s engineering team has moved to Codespaces

#692

Post by maccard »

blacktriangle wrote: post #665
maccard wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wheh they show any signs of extending git, or extinguishing any other open source competitors, I will be standing there with you calling them out. Until then, they're developing an excellent product that people want to use, built with open tooling

Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.

I'm arguing against soundbytes here, which is really unfortunate and something I hoped would be above HN. It's very easy to shut down an argument with a soundbyte or a famous quote when you don't have any actual proof that history is repeating itself. The situation and landscape is _very_ different from the mid 90s, Microsoft are showing _no_ indication of being bad actors whatsoever, (in fact they're showing the exact opposite) and haven't done for at least a decade.

Re: GitHub’s engineering team has moved to Codespaces

#693

Post by blacktriangle »

maccard wrote: post #692
blacktriangle wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.

I'm arguing against soundbytes here, which is really unfortunate and something I hoped would be above HN. It's very easy to shut down an argument with a soundbyte or a famous quote when you don't have any actual proof that history is repeating itself. The situation and landscape is _very_ different from the mid 90s, Microsoft are showing _no_ indication of being bad actors whatsoever, (in fact they're showing the exa…

We're down to soundbites because all of the arguments already happened and we're down to agree to disagree. You are basically asking for proof of a future event already occuring when the best we can do is look at the historic behavior of not just MS but similar companies. Your entire stance is to ignore any historical trends or behavior and only agree once the damage is already done. There's no constructive argument to be had there.

Effectively you're saying that all decision making should be based on current observable reality only and any projections about the future should be ignored because they are not 100% provable. I guess that's a way to function, and based on how bad people often get the future wrong it might even be a productive one, but it does explain why we're down to soundbites, because we've reached a fundamental disagreement not on opensource or Github, but a disagreement on how to plan for the future.

Re: GitHub’s engineering team has moved to Codespaces

#694

Post by rhn_mk1 »

maccard wrote: post #691
rhn_mk1 wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice, it doesn't matter what an "actual" extension looks like, but how your product is viewed by customers, because those are the ones you want to lock in. And judging by HN comments, to very many people, Git means Github, making it an extension, if not outright a synonym. And their extending has nothing to do with open standards, which is worrying due to the potential to create lock-in.

By that logic, anyone who builds a product around an open standard is guilty of EEE. A web browser that implements a sync feature, an XML editor that implements syntax highlighting , an RSS reader that implements link previews all "embrace" open source standards and "extend" their core open standards with non-standard features, which is _exactly_ what github have done. They have been excellent players in the git ecos…

I think this conundrum can be broken up by noticing how pervasive one extension is. A feature that has become identical with the core product in the eyes of a layman is problematic in the same way as thinking "IE6" is the same as "the web". If there's no awreness of choice, then the only outcome is further lock-in.

Implementing "sync" on its own doesn't matter that much, because few people think "sync" is a defining feature of the web standards, or that preview is an inherent part of web feeds. The awareness of alternatives still exists (I hope).

Re: GitHub’s engineering team has moved to Codespaces

#695

Post by Cyberdog »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #470
bogwog wrote: post #358

Serious question: if I were to use this, would Microsoft collect analytics on me (code written, keystrokes, mouse movements, sleep/work schedule, productivity metrics, etc) and monetize that data by using it to build some AI product like Copilot, or build a productivity dashboard so managers can fire people for not being productive enough (like Xsolla did), use it to serve me ads, or do some stupid/irresponsible/unet…

As slownew45 points out, Github does not make money from individuals who use it for free. Of course such use will become increasingly difficult over time for Microsoft pinheads to justify from a business perspective. Telemetry, full-on surveillance and ultimately subtle manipulation of individual software authors seems an obvious choice to try to justify why Github should continue to allow non-paying individuals to u…

> we would have pointed out the idiocy of anyone choosing to use a web browser released by Google.

I still try to, but it’s a lost battle already. (Don’t use Chrome, BTW.)

Re: GitHub’s engineering team has moved to Codespaces

#696

Post by gailbear »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #666
vbezhenar wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I often read on HN that it's a norm for US employers to install spying software on developers computers. I don't see how is it different. I would try to avoid from working in such a companies, because I don't feel secure knowing that someone is spying on me.

> I often read on HN that it's a norm for US employers to install spying software on developers computers. I haven't heard of this happening at all . Whereas it is commonplace for people to use time-tracking software (like Toggl, RescueTime, etc) - and it is also not-uncommon for companies to require employees to use such software (software-eng or otherwise) for the purposes of reporting their time/hours/what-they're…

Not only have I heard of this happening, it's literally on my computer right now! Most of the monitoring on it is automated - but I also write that software. There's not a lot of ML involved in the kinds of automated activity checking that my employer is doing, but if they suspected I was not being productive, they could basically pull my entire body of network requests, which at the very least has addresses of sites, and can tell you roughly how long someone spent on them. Since 90% of my work is on the internet, this is pretty effective spying.

Interestingly, I'd much prefer Microsoft's algorithms classifying me as productive or unproductive, based on how I code - while there's a lot to be said for different patterns of work being equally productive, I trust Microsoft to implement the same heuristics across the board, and not take a look at my gender and race and make assumptions about me based on that.

(Of course, since the ML data of productivity will come from nearly entirely white males, if it's only available to github enterprise cloud subscribers, then the ML data will be pretty biased as it is. Guess discrimination is inevitable!)

Re: GitHub’s engineering team has moved to Codespaces

#697

Post by wiseleo »

crusty wrote: post #685
manigandham wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have the same rights to privacy when performing your job for a corporation, and everyone else is already doing it in other industries. Just this week was a big story about how a call center provider (used by Apple and others) was forcing employees to install cameras in their own homes to monitor their remote work: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/big-tech-call-center-...

I was just going to mention customer service reps, who traditionally would have worked out of call centers and been subject to restrictions to make it more difficult for them to steal customer data (with the side 'benefit' of micromanaging productivity). With the pandemic, businesses that had considered CS staff they couldn't replace with AI as not sitting for remote were forced to figure out a way, and that way was…

Customer support is a computer with a mere human overlay. A profound statement.

Re: GitHub’s engineering team has moved to Codespaces

#698

Post by jokethrowaway »

distrill wrote: post #438
jokethrowaway wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of engineers but few good ones. Hiring is brutal, especially now, so good developers can afford to be picky and find another semi identical job in almost no time.

I hear you, but I'm suggesting that this trait is part of what differentiates a good engineer. If I'm hiring someone and they have a bunch of recent moves that are stemmed from reasons like "they wanted to use some process that I refused to try" or "they made us go through some training that I thought was a waste of time", then I consider that to be a very risky candidate. There should honestly be some good faith on…

Totally, I think if something is making you quit it must be pretty annoying - or you wouldn't risk trading the known with the unknown (which can very well end up being worse). I also wouldn't mention the real reason in a future job interview, if it sounds ridiculous.

That said, small things can look trivial from the outside and make your life a living hell at the same time.

Re: GitHub’s engineering team has moved to Codespaces

#699

Post by jokethrowaway »

distrill wrote: post #448
jokethrowaway wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of engineers but few good ones. Hiring is brutal, especially now, so good developers can afford to be picky and find another semi identical job in almost no time.

I'm also not sure I agree that there are few good engineers. I think that's some rhetoric that we all say because we all think we're some of the few good ones. In my experience (FAANG, startups in the valley and startups out of state/country), strong engineering talent is not particularly difficult to find, but finding a good fit is the tricky part. And I would wager that eagerness-to-rage-quit is a pretty good indic…

That depends on what kind of companies you want to work for.

If you look outside of FAANG (companies in the rest of the world with unattractive stock), finding good engineers is a problem and most codebases are filled with horror.

The plus side is that, once you're a good engineer, you get little stress/pressure and a lot of leverage on flexibility (eg. remote in cheap places, in pre covid times), even if you won't make as much as FANG engineers. Also, interviews don't require 2 months of preparation every time you want to jump ship.

I'm sure if you're paying FAANG money you can find plenty of good engineers happy to do backflips.

Re: GitHub’s engineering team has moved to Codespaces

#700

Post by maccard »

blacktriangle wrote: post #693
maccard wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm arguing against soundbytes here, which is really unfortunate and something I hoped would be above HN. It's very easy to shut down an argument with a soundbyte or a famous quote when you don't have any actual proof that history is repeating itself. The situation and landscape is _very_ different from the mid 90s, Microsoft are showing _no_ indication of being bad actors whatsoever, (in fact they're showing the exa…

We're down to soundbites because all of the arguments already happened and we're down to agree to disagree. You are basically asking for proof of a future event already occuring when the best we can do is look at the historic behavior of not just MS but similar companies. Your entire stance is to ignore any historical trends or behavior and only agree once the damage is already done. There's no constructive argument…

If you're going to tell me to look at the history, then I should tell you to do the same. The history says the did it, 25 years ago, and haven't been doing it for almost 20. The history says they are being good citizens in all their open source contributions in the last decade. It says they're actively working to further the open standards they're building on. At a certain point, a specific incident becomes an outlier, which is a point I believe we have passed.
Post reply on HN