Maybe for their SaaS but we’ll see how it’s implemented in GitHub Enterprise for on-prem. If it’s anything like LFS you’ll just be expected to keep growing your volume instead of doing something sane like supporting s3 or hell, even separate volumes.
What's the point in running on-prem if you're just going to store large files in S3 anyway? It makes perfect sense the way they decided on.
Supporting the S3 API could still make sense, at least you could decouple it and run Minio or something.
I'm worried about the resiliency of code distribution as we continue the trend of centralizing distribution in a few large companies. GitHub has had service outages in the past, so what happens when not just our repositories but also now packages are not accessible the next time that happens? It would be great if they'd implement it using an open/decentralized protocol such as IPFS, so that even if GitHub went down t…
This is pretty interesting. Github really is becoming the social network that MS never seemed to be able to create. We already use it as our portfolio of work for potential employers. We collaborate with fellow enthusiasts and maybe even make new friends. We host our websites from it. Abuse it to store binaries, too. And now, along side, source code we can use it as a CDN of sorts to serve packages, for free, sounds…
The term "social network" has become too vague in 2019. You will have to append a purpose to each one. ie. Yelp is a social network for food, LinkedIn is a social network for professionals, and GitHub is another for developers.
Each one will serve a niche which is much harder to supplant because there's a common purpose. In contrast, when people think of Facebook, people just associate it as 'the' social network but not one for a special purpose.
From my perspective, it would be awesome if this could (in the future) be used to properly-host Debian and RHEL packages (extending of course to their derivatives, like Ubuntu and CentOS).
I wouldn't expect that to compete with platforms like EPEL, but I think it would be great for easy distribution of programs that aren't in those wider places.
It is still really unorganized in many ways. The worst thing, I think, is search results still frequently list obsolete MSDN pages higher...and, btw, the new branding is not MSDN, but docs.microsoft.com. They still have a long ways to go, with the typical problems of a large organization tackling a large, kind of amorphous, project.
docs.microsoft.com PM here - thanks for the feedback! It takes some time to update all our search results across the two major search engines. Given that some pages have less traction than others, the more obscure content sometimes still is indexed as if it's coming from MSDN.
We have moved most of the library to docs, with redirects in place, so hopefully you won't get too many 404s. If you do - feel free to report them here: https://aka.ms/sitefeedback, and we'll address them.
I'm not convinced this means the death of Maven Central, but I'll start publishing to both either way.
Yea same here. There are way too many workflows already setup around Maven Central. People publish to it from Scala/SBT, Gradle, Clojure/Leiningen, Kotlin, etc. It's not going to be going anywhere any time soon.
Exactly. It’s nice to have competition in the Java package space aside from Maven, Jfrog Artifactory and Nexus. It will take time to build up network effects for Github but if they make a good product I could see it happening eventually. We use Artifactory where I work and the generic aspect of it plus the ecosystem integrations are super nice. I can publish docker images, regular zip files, jar files, Python packages etc and use the same tooling for all of that. GitHub should really push for the one-stop-shop approach here because I feel like that’s going to be their major competitive advantage. That’s where Gitlab has been playing too so I wouldn’t be surprised to see a similar product from them in the near future.
MS's core competency has always been developers. IBM called Microsoft for BASIC back in the day because without MS BASIC their computer was DOA to a lot of potential customers.
> MS's core competency has always been developers. As a developer who still has to work very hard to forgive MS for all the pain IE6 put me through a decade ago, this grates on my ears, even though I understand that it might be true in the abstract. Classically, MS has been good to developers who agree to be chained to their platform, but has made life extremely difficult for developers who want or need to be platfor…
A lot has happened since IE6..
I think it might be time to move on.
Eg their main focus for .net Core has been multi platform - ie the last 3-4 years!
Visual Studio Code.
And on browsers they are building what will probably be a better Chromium than Google's Chrome, in the new Edge.