Hello, GitHub

Post by ctrlaltdestroy » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 9:44 PM UTC

bgongfu wrote: post #63

I'm split on this one. I lived through Microsoft's dark ages, when the victory of open source was still hanging by a thread. The reason we're seeing a softer Microsoft is that they lost, they were forced to change. And the open question is what they learned in the process. On the other hand, they're producing pretty decent software these days; dotNet Core, TypeScript & VSCode just to name a few solid projects. Open s…

Post by ionforce » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 9:46 PM UTC

cobookman wrote: post #200

johannes1234321 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Will Facebook/Google/Apple start pulling their code from GitHub? For these companies who owned GitHub hardly plays a role. They want to attract developers and go wherever the crowds go. If there is mass migration to mercurial-superhost.com they will follow. It's just an outlet. The question is more relevant for companies and communities who built their infrastructure on it and might worry for good or not so good re…

I think public code will still live on github, but I See FAANG 100% avoiding any private github repos from now on.

Post by HelloNurse » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 9:47 PM UTC

ljm wrote: post #264

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've felt similar. There's been some impressive innovation from MS in the dev space recently: VS Code is a pleasure to use, Azure wasn't quite as intimidating as AWS can be (but who can blame them, AWS has a lot more legacy). Windows 10 was pleasant to work with, telemetry issues aside. Things are shifting. In fact, I think there's a strong 'once a criminal, always a criminal' mentality that takes a healthy skepticis…

Post by 8_hours_ago » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 9:47 PM UTC

phillipcarter wrote: post #284

SiVal wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bigger tech companies not only do not host important private source code on Github but won't even host on outsourced physical servers. Where I've worked (incl. well-known names), information that we wanted spread to the world could be hosted on trusted external systems (trust still mattered to keep it from being "edited"), but non-public info was always hosted inside a physical building that we owned watched 24/7 by…

MS employee here: Long before the acquisition, we've been hosting important stuff in private GitHub repositories. Including having strategic discussions in those private repositories. We've also done a lot of that stuff in public too. Some might say a bit too much, given that we've had things leaked and/or misinterpreted w.r.t product direction in the past. I still agree with your point, but I believe more of this so…

Post by earenndil » Mon, Jun 04, 2018, 9:48 PM UTC

xfer wrote: post #254

earenndil wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't expressing my own opinion on such licenses; 'viral' is accepted terminology for licenses like the gpl that require derivative works to use the same license. However, if you would like an argument, then yes. Or, rather, I think it's morally ok for people to make software under any license they choose, including licenses that allow big companies to use their work. Personally, I use bsd-3 for most of what I wri…

> I think it's morally ok for people to make software under any license they choose Yes, you can make your own software under any license, GPL has no control over you. But it's not ok to fork a GPL software make internal changes and sell it like you wrote it. If that applied to linux, no hardware vendor would be contributing to linux.