91–100 of 225 posts
BitBucket for private stuff/stuff I don't want showcasing. GitHub for open-source. Works perfectly fine for me and since they're both Git based there's no extra learning curves for either of them.
I use them in the same way, but I can't help but feeling that I am taking advantage of Bitbucket and not giving anything in return, regardless of being good guy Bitbucket.
This is getting terrifyingly close to my prediction that Microsoft should/would/will buy GitHub. When I first started predicting this two or so years ago, it was mainly for its comedic value (it always got laughs, followed by "yeah, they should!" followed by nervous laughter followed by "wait, do you think they would actually do that?!"), but after the open sourcing of .NET I honestly think anything is possible. Espe…
I've been listening my way through the archive of Scott Hanselman's hanselminutes podcasts. Microsoft has been striving to be on the right side of history in regard to open source for five or six years. It's all out in the open. Moving to Github is simply developer friendly. Don't misunderstand me. Microsoft's products compete with open source software in the marketplace for developer mindshare and I am not suggestin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
pjmlp has it right, but I'll add some further clarifications. One of the most important aspects of Microsoft's success is network effect. People use Windows and Office because other people use Windows and Office. But network effect also works on the development/platform side. Devs write apps in the technologies they know and are comfortable with, and those tend to be the technologies they've used for personal or work…
> But the idea of using C#, .NET, or coding Windows Apps? Far fewer devs under 30 are doing that than they were 10 or 20 years ago. Except I'm not sure MS is still betting on Windows apps, and they're not making money off of .NET either. Of course, it's very prestigious to have your own dev tools/platform/language and all the big kids have them, but none of them are making money.
This is getting terrifyingly close to my prediction that Microsoft should/would/will buy GitHub. When I first started predicting this two or so years ago, it was mainly for its comedic value (it always got laughs, followed by "yeah, they should!" followed by nervous laughter followed by "wait, do you think they would actually do that?!"), but after the open sourcing of .NET I honestly think anything is possible. Espe…
What does MS gain? Is online source code storage really going to be a million or billion dollar business for them? It seems like it's just a race to the bottom with costs, just like Dropbox, Box, etc. etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been listening my way through the archive of Scott Hanselman's hanselminutes podcasts. Microsoft has been striving to be on the right side of history in regard to open source for five or six years. It's all out in the open. Moving to Github is simply developer friendly. Don't misunderstand me. Microsoft's products compete with open source software in the marketplace for developer mindshare and I am not suggestin…
Even though Microsoft have embraced open source, they are not happy about the GPL license, and have actively replaced GPL code in their previous takeovers.
My impression is that GPL (or another copyleft style licence) would create incompatibilities with the business models of many of their customers. Taking contributions would also be problematic since Microsoft may wish to dogfood their opensource for proprietary products.
For better or worse many of their products incorporate licensed technology from other companies under terms incompatible with GPL. So GPL's strong terms don't seem a viable and reasoned alternative.
GPL might be seen as a strong option for companies whose business is built around dual licensing their technology and when all that technology was built in house or licenced under different less stringent terms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's better about Bitbucket? I've never used it, just wondering.
If you're working in a team the code review workflow is a bit better, because as a reviewer you can explicitly Approve a pull request. I've used it in a team where the requirement was to get two approvals before a pull request can be shipped. Having the number of approvals visible on the pull request list/overview screen is a tiny detail, but very useful. At my current job we're using a "ship it" label on GitHub to t…
Microsoft embracing open source and open culture without having a clear path forward ensuring business. This reminds me of Sun a lot. That didn't end up well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably TFS, which Microsoft use quite a bit internally [1]. [1] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/visualstudioalm/archive/2013/08/20/t...
> Probably TFS, which Microsoft use quite a bit internally But seemingly less and less so, especially in the SDK-teams. Which is definitely interesting. If Microsoft's own SDK-developers don't want to use Microsoft's own source-control and ALM-system, but rather prefers Github, what signals does that send? I would sayed mixed at best.