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

Hello, GitHub

natfriedman.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 671 posts

Re: Hello, GitHub

#161

Post by kbumsik »

Klathmon wrote: post #64
ericabiz wrote: post #7

I’m going to be a bit contrarian to “the sky is falling” posts on HN and say: I think Microsoft is handling this really well. 1) They’ve acknowledged the skepticism around the acquisition. 2) They’ve expressed their commitment to keep GitHub an independent platform (like they did with LinkedIn.) 3) Nat Friedman, although I was not familiar with him prior to this, seems like an ideal candidate to run GitHub. This, ove…

I agree, my biggest concerns are: 1. What is happening to Atom? I have tried VS code and don't really like it due to the difference in how the 2 systems are designed to work (Atom being more "plugins are king", VSCode being more "kitchen sink included by first-party"). I'd hate to see my favorite editor lose it's major backing. If MS makes a commitment to continue to develop Atom, or they work with someone else to "t…

> What is happening to Atom?

Since they said Github will remain independent, so Atom will, I think. Maybe I'm too optimistic but when I think about VSCode's business model, promoting Azure rather than selling the editor itself, they have no reason to kill Atom. They might be integrating Azure with Atom.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#162

Post by alexbeloi »

leg100 wrote: post #70
hlmencken wrote: post #16

It was a pleasure but gitlab and bitbucket have continued to improve and I've expected some sort of exit for a while. I appreciate everything the Github team has done, but barring some crazy improvements from Microsoft I think my feet are firmly planted on the GitLab train.

How has gitlab "continued to improve"? They are getting worse. Do you have statistics on their uptime or their performance? Because in my own experience, gitlab.com is going from bad to worse. Their API increasingly returns 503s and timeouts. Their UI is increasingly returning a stale state. One pushes a branch and they say it doesn't exist. One does a git pull and it takes so long one is used to going off and puttin…

You and GP are talking about different things. As you say, Gitlab.com has been deteriorating and has continual performance issues, however Gitlab Core (the OSS project) has made big strides in the last year in adding features like excellent CI/CD integration, issue boards, merge request templates, web based IDE for quick edits, etc. For teams of people working together, these tools are really useful and important, less so for big community or solo projects.

Unlike Github, you can host Gitlab on your own server, to get whatever performance you're willing to pay for.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#163

Post by bitL »

jpeg_hero wrote: post #140
bitL wrote: post #52

"Hey everyone, I am Nat. I joined the dark side, now I am being rewarded for it as a future CEO, woohoo! I hope you are as happy as I am! See ya later!" Many of us were given a choice to join MS but didn't.

I like that there are still hardline cold warriors out there from the '90's. I was there too, but the war is over. Come in from the cold.

Come on, I still see the deformations in our industry caused by MS, Oracle and similar companies and nothing of the bad deeds was undone (nobody is going to resurrect progressive businesses/ideas they killed off). Instead we have Bill playing a philanthrope and getting admiration by outsiders and Satya being the jobesque face of "new MS", with Windows 10 fun. I worked for their main competitor and another company that was eaten alive by MS, and they tried to poach me as well.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#164

Post by BigChiefSmokem »

craftyguy wrote: post #69
michielr wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There has been nothing but words up to this point. I get your point, but come on, there have been a lot of 'actions' over the last couple of years. This only detracts from your argument. We've had .NET Core, visual studio code, the improvements on Git, WSL and more.

None of those are meaningful contributions to existing platforms/projects that MS does not own outright. They're throwing code of the wall. MS's contributions to git are very light. Edit: clarify my point.

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/

Microsoft has had a vested interest in Git and Open-Source for a while now.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#165

Post by oaiey »

nicodjimenez wrote: post #145

What nobody is really commenting on is how huge of an opportunity this is for Microsoft to reinvent itself in the eyes of the developer community. If Microsoft can somehow manage to gain trust from Github users, which is very possible and desirable for them, it will make Azure more compelling in many ways than Amazon as a cloud computing platform. After Amazon's acquisition of Cloud9, Microsoft is the first big compa…

The Microsoft bashing is painful. I also wonder about outcomes like that, positive ones for Microsoft, GitHub the platform and GitHub the community.

So much negativity!

Re: Hello, GitHub

#166

Post by grumbel »

pknopf wrote: post #43
badminton1 wrote: post #25

The main platform where open source takes place is now owned by a company that thought of open source as a form of cancer, vocally talked against it in a disrespectful manner for no reason, promoted fear/uncertainty/doubt campaigns, and even to this day continues to troll companies with patents. That is not a great place to be in. Personally, I think everyone should just move their projects somewhere else before Micr…

> thought of open source as a form of cancer, vocally talked against it Not that I deny it, because can you point me to some examples of this?

Microsoft ran these ads in Germany back in 2000:

http://xaharts.org/funny/i/Microsoft_Linux_ad.jpg

Translation:

An open operating system does not only have advantages

An open operating system can mutate. With Windows 2000, however, all services are from a single source. This saves time and thus money. More information at www.microsoft.com/germany/windows2000

Re: Hello, GitHub

#167

Post by megaman22 »

baldfat wrote: post #39
snowwolf wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve seen many acquisitions commit to 2) only to slowly walk back from that “in the interests of operational efficiencies”. And next thing you know you have to change over to using a Microsoft account to log in...

What would be wrong having a Microsoft account to log in exactly? They aren't getting any more information from you then they have currently purchased. I remember when I had a YouTube account, a blogger account and a Google account and I am glad I just use one google account myself.

Microsoft accounts are a trainwreck... I've got at least three or four of them all with the same email address, and despite years of effort to link them together and consolidate, I still have to use all of them to log into different services and access different resources. The permissioning on things like Azure and VSTS doesn't make a lick of sense.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#168

Post by superflyguy »

aldanor wrote: post #142
justadudeama wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my thinking as well. Do I bail ship to gitlab and support more open software, or do I try to stay centralized?

... and when GitLab inevitably gets acquired by another ${megacorp}?..

Then I'll change part of the URL I've soft coded from ...hub... to ...lab... to ... bucket...

Re: Hello, GitHub

#169

Post by JustSomeNobody »

ggregoire wrote: post #128
bad_user wrote: post #13

So I’m kind of depressed about this. I loved GitHub enough that I paid for a subscription without needing it and have all of my public work on it and my investment in OSS is quite significant. People saying that it is easy to migrate don’t know what they are talking about. GitHub isn’t just Git hosting, but a social network of open source developers and projects. You can’t migrate stars, issues with comments and the…

Why would you migrate? We haven't seen anything yet.

People should at least formulate and exit strategy. It would be wrong to do otherwise[0].

[0] I firmly believe in preparedness.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#170

Post by Klathmon »

bitL wrote: post #151
Klathmon wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, my biggest concerns are: 1. What is happening to Atom? I have tried VS code and don't really like it due to the difference in how the 2 systems are designed to work (Atom being more "plugins are king", VSCode being more "kitchen sink included by first-party"). I'd hate to see my favorite editor lose it's major backing. If MS makes a commitment to continue to develop Atom, or they work with someone else to "t…

I wouldn't be worried about Atom; half of Facebook is using it; if anything were to happen, they would fork it.

While i'm confident that Atom will not "die" any time soon, if MS pulls the team that's currently working on new features and reassigns them, then at best it's going to be a large blow to the project.

A fork won't have the same team working on it, a fork won't have the same domain knowledge over the internals, a fork won't have the roadmap or what was currently planned and how to do it, a fork won't have the same unified development effort (if MS "kills" atom, FB won't be the only one picking it up, there will absolutely be others that won't like the direction FB is taking, and now you don't just have Atom, you have AtomFB, Atom2, NuAtom, etc...)

It won't be that big of a deal at the end of the day (it's not like there is a shortage of competition in this area), but I would be much more on-board with this if MS handles Atom well.

Post reply on HN