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

GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 366 posts

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#201

Post by jenscow »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #117
djsumdog wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is pretty much doing the same thing with Chrome. Opera has switched to its rendering engine and Firefox's share is dropping (after Google pumped tons of money in them and used their work to enhance their own offering). Gecko is barely on the map while Google's render can be found in newer versions of Opera, Vivaldi, and others. I mean if you go back far enough, Microsoft did this with IE. IIRC, they licensed a…

Chrome is absolutely the new IE... it’s just in the heyday stage instead of the “ancient barely supported monster” stage that IE was in when developers began to hate it. The need for greater variety in the spread of popular rendering engines is dire and real. Browser monoculture is dangerous and I refuse to use any browser that’s Chromium/Blink as my daily driver for this reason. I seek alternatives for sites that ob…

I disagree that Chrome it will become stagnated like IE.

Microsoft had no desire to improve IE and make the web a more desirable platform than Windows. (I'd suggest it still doesn't)

Google, however, directly benefit from the web being a better place, and they know first hand that a dominant browser can be toppled. And the competition is fierce, with MS back to bundling and it's so easy to switch browsers now that there's (currently) a good compliance of standards and no such things as ActiveX.

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#202

Post by joefourier »

megaman22 wrote: post #108
djsumdog wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feels like a page out of The Dictators Handbook: > First, politics is about getting and keeping political power. It is not about the general welfare of "We, the people." Or I guess here, 'we the developers.' I don't think Microsoft is at all alone in this spot. Github got a huge payout from this. It benefited them. We don't think of them as a Microsoft style company, but they made the same decision we might have seen…

Oculus is vaporware, right? I don't see anything that encourages me that whatever thing they were aiming at will be a thing?

Vaporware is software/hardware that is never actually manufactured or released to the public. Oculus has released the Rift, the Go and (with Samsung) the Gear VR, which are all available in stores now. All are successful, if relatively niche, products performing as intended, which is the opposite of vaporware.

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#203

Post by issaria »

pmontra wrote: post #146
daveFNbuck wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost to copy a repo over is low, but you lose all the social aspects. You don't copy over forks or stars. People who want to fork your repo and make pull requests need to sign up for a new service. Old links to your repo on GitHub won't work anymore. I copied my personal projects to GitLab today and that was very easy to do but I'm not sure what to do about the GitHub version for the one that had a little popular…

I did the same. I'm replacing the README on GitHub with "Moved to https://gitlab.com/.. . and a description of what the software does. If people finds it interesting they will follow the link. A fork between services becomes more complicate but not so much: git pull from GitLab and git push to GitHub or whatever. Everybody knows how to do it. Right, one loses the "fork" link between the two repositories but really, w…

You sound like gitlab is the "right" choice.

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#205

Post by jenscow »

sleepychu wrote: post #167
amelius wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You will not be able to easily move away from any dominant platform because it will be not just the code but the community you leave behind. I find it hard to believe that an audience of developers can't point their browser to a different url, or search for your project using Google.

Right but because they're otherwise decentralised it would take co-ordinated effort and ultimately it fragments the community. What we need, if we want to solve this issue, is a federated network of servers which provide the functionality of github today.

That is already the case. The underlying "protocol" is git.

And if the functionality of github became the basic minimum, each provider will still provide their value-added on top of that.

If that sort of thing is forbidden, then there will be no motivation for improvement.

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#206

Post by DEADBEEFC0FFEE »

notveryrational wrote: post #66

Microsoft can not buy goodwill with me, personally. I worked at the company and was privy to "strategic conversations" whereby they were looking to regain trust with developers to get them back from Android and Google to Windows stack. Microsoft practically forced us to use Windows stack for anything and everything, even when there were much better tools. Under Satya, it was better, but the emphasis is still very muc…

>It's also a terrifying lesson about the fragility of the open source movement

It's not fragile, it very much antifragile. The highs and lows make it stronger and more resiliant.

What I find interesting is the commentary about this deal is all about Microsoft, and very little about the people who sold Github. Presumably they were highly regarded by many, and they sold out open-source (not my view).

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#207

Post by pmontra »

issaria wrote: post #203
pmontra wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did the same. I'm replacing the README on GitHub with "Moved to https://gitlab.com/.. . and a description of what the software does. If people finds it interesting they will follow the link. A fork between services becomes more complicate but not so much: git pull from GitLab and git push to GitHub or whatever. Everybody knows how to do it. Right, one loses the "fork" link between the two repositories but really, w…

You sound like gitlab is the "right" choice.

Maybe, or maybe there is an emerging space for a service that would count stars, forks, etc on all versions of a repository and aggregate the values. But I would hate another centralized service.

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#208

Post by r3bl »

exceptione wrote: post #195
simonh wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Google is bad because they poured millions of dollars into Mozilla for Firefox development, but even so their own browser is still better and more popular, and the code is open for other projects to use. Which is a bad, evil thing to do and we want none of that round here! And this is the same as developing a crummy browser, not sharing the code and not funding any alternate implementations, and leaving it stagnan…

«So Google is bad because they poured millions of dollars into Mozilla for Firefox development, » No. Google paid for having its search engine in firefox (as the default engine).

To be precise, Google/Yahoo deal(s) made by Mozilla only affect certain countries. Mozilla is free to include whichever default browser they want in the rest of the world.

In fact, they did that during the Yahoo deal. Yahoo was default only in countries affected by the deal, while Google was the default one... I would say in the rest of the world, but I'm not 100% sure if they made deals with Yandex in Russia or some other deal.

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#209

Post by reacharavindh »

cthalupa wrote: post #170
reacharavindh wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood the Systemd argument in the Linux ecosystem. Sure, it may not be what everybody wants in the Linux ecosystem. But, that's the point of having so many independent distributions right? Red hat is not secretly pushing anything on anybody. If something is better than Systemd, clearly other distributions will go that route and try to outcompete Redhat... No? I see Redhat as the enterprise seller of Linu…

> Just trying to ask why Redhat is always blamed for Systemd Probably because Lennart Poettering is a Red Hat employee and wrote systemd while working for them? Not a comment on whether systemd is good or not, but... the author being paid to write it as an employee of the company is a reasonable reason to believe they are responsible for it's creation.

But, my real contextual ask was Why RedHat is blamed for Systemd in Linux Ecosystem...

Sure, a RedHat employee built something that Redhat wanted for their major Linux distribution. Why does the community direct hate at RedHat for it being everywhere? If it is deemed as not good by the community, the distributions are free to develop alternatives...

Re: GitHub Is Microsoft’s $7.5B Undo Button

#210

Post by oblio »

wnsire wrote: post #161
sixothree wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That to me is what DotNet Core is, along with Asp.Net, Entity Framework many years ago, and everything developer related becoming open source. GitHub is just a signal to people who have been out of the loop, bloomberg and many linux developers. When I start dropping my apps on their systems, they might be surprised how well they run. https://github.com/dotnet https://github.com/aspnet

> That to me is what DotNet Core DotNet Core debugger is proprietary . You can only debug apps within Microsoft environment according to their license. Same thing for most of the azure tools , you are only allowed to use them within Visual Studio. I don't really called that "all in open source" . It's gimmick to give C# devs the illusion of a choice. Try to build , run & deploy a C# app on AWS with Atom. You're gonna…

You've heard of Open Core, I imagine? That's what everyone does. Even the GitLab everyone's talking about in this context is Open Core.

And regarding your claim, you can do all of that, even with Vim if you want. You just have to build some scaffolding.

After all, they can't be expected to implementing everything for everyone. More than that, they were actually nice and created LSP (https://langserver.org/) and now they're thinking about a Debug Adapter Protocol (https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode-debugadapter-node/issues...) that would do the same thing for debugging.

Post reply on HN