191–200 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't just buy image. If anything it would just dilute the image of github. It's like the rich kid trying to make friends by buying the basketball court.
And yet, they bought Minecraft, which seems to be exactly that strategy.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's all out in the open. Really? So they release the source to a few of their developer frameworks and tools, and they're now "all open"? Don't get me wrong, as a long time C# developer I do appreciate the gesture and I'm especially happy that they're working their "not invented here" mentality, but with simply providing us with the source code that we already have anyway (via ilspy), all of this just seems over-i…
Completely agreed. Once Microsoft releases the VS source code, I'll be completely sold on the idea that it's reformed. Until then, this seems like very effective developer relations management.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't just buy image. If anything it would just dilute the image of github. It's like the rich kid trying to make friends by buying the basketball court.
And yet, they bought Minecraft, which seems to be exactly that strategy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a non-sarcastic world it's called "community" and it increases the chance of getting collaborators contributing to your project. You know, the point of open-source being that everyone should be able to contribute and all that.
In a naive world it's called community. These days open source is a vehicle for multinationals to get suckers to write and test their software for free. Microsoft has caught on to that, hence the move.
Lets for arguments sake accept your statement as fact. If that is a fact, is that inherently a bad thing?
If I use a piece of software, open-source or not, will I or will I not benefit from that software somehow obtaining better test-coverage? Ofcourse I will.
If that software is important to me, being able to contribute with tests or other "boring" or "light" material means that the core team can focus on further development. And I honestly don't have a problem with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free private repositories and out-of-the-box mercurial support. Works well for those small side projects which you do not (yet) want to maintain. I have lots of stuff in there which i want to keep as reference for projects to come and would never want to release to the public.
If you don't yet want to publish, why do you need GitHub or Bitbucket? Why not just keep the repository local?
My two cents on this are that I always try to outsource any internal services to reduce maintenance time. For example
1. Own git repository will need backup and server configuration to be accessed from all machines that I own, which means I will need to spend time on security.
2. Own GitLab instance will mean 1 + system resources ( GitLab actually uses more than I would like to spare )
3. If I need to benefit hooks and pretty UI I would also need to do 1 + 2 + writing README files and integrate with different CI services.
What I figured out is that there are 1 and 2 outsourced and free ( bitbucket ), so I would not bother doing this on my own.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Completely agreed. Once Microsoft releases the VS source code, I'll be completely sold on the idea that it's reformed. Until then, this seems like very effective developer relations management.
Why the VS source code? It would be almost entirely useless to anybody as there is 2 decades of legacy in that code base and MS has massive teams just trying to keep it all together. Only open source things that are WORTH open sourcing i.e. where you want active contributors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Completely agreed. Once Microsoft releases the VS source code, I'll be completely sold on the idea that it's reformed. Until then, this seems like very effective developer relations management.
Why the VS source code? It would be almost entirely useless to anybody as there is 2 decades of legacy in that code base and MS has massive teams just trying to keep it all together. Only open source things that are WORTH open sourcing i.e. where you want active contributors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's all out in the open. Really? So they release the source to a few of their developer frameworks and tools, and they're now "all open"? Don't get me wrong, as a long time C# developer I do appreciate the gesture and I'm especially happy that they're working their "not invented here" mentality, but with simply providing us with the source code that we already have anyway (via ilspy), all of this just seems over-i…
This isn't big because Microsoft has stared sharing source. The source to the .NET framework has been available _without_ ILSpy for years now. This is big because Microsoft is truly embracing an open source development model. They've opened most of the .NET platform up to the whole shebang - pull requests, copying code into other projects, forking, all that good stuff.
Fair enough.