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

Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 1001 posts

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#371

Post by closeparen »

EnderMB wrote: post #117

I spent eight years building software on .NET, so I have a lot of time for Microsoft, but I fully understand why a lot of people aren't happy with this news. It's been good to have a leader in open-source that is unaffiliated with anyone but the tech they chose to use (Ruby/Rails). For me, it doesn't matter who takes it over - it's just sad to see a neutral player disappear. With all that said, things have changed a…

This dovetails nicely with Windows Subsystem for Linux, VS Code, and Microsoft’s ongoing play to capture the Silicon Valley hipster development ecosystem that Apple is alienating.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#372

Post by havemylife »

aphextron wrote: post #159

What a betrayal. I'm starting to get really sick of this whole economic paradigm in general. A few lucky smart people who were in the right place at the right time become fabulously wealthy beyond the dreams of the greatest kings who ever lived in history, off the work and contributions of millions of users creating all of the content for free, with absolutely no say in anything. Is this really the best way to do thi…

I've been giving the concept of distributed ownership some thought. None of it's concrete and I certainly don't currently possess the wealth of knowledge or experience necessary to make it work or form it into something less abstract.

At anyrate the thoughts are along the lines of distributing shares of a company either eveningly to everyone or depending on how much an individual contributes will be returned with some increase in shares. Anyone participating in any form of company is at least immediately given some share. For example if you helped produce something that the company sells you're given some ownership. However additionally shares of ownership can be attained by directly buying the product that has been produced.

Idealisticly the goal is a company, or companies, where every one benefits from the interactions/transactions and not a small number of individuals that have direct incentives to consolidate more.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#373

Post by miguelrochefort »

indigochill wrote: post #339

Heck, I already prefer Gitlab and/or Bitbucket because they let me run free (or at least self-hosted in Gitlab's case, not sure what their hosted option's like) private repos. Github's just got the mindshare going for it. But maybe now that'll change.

I'm sure GitHub will introduce free private repos soon enough.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#374

Post by toyg »

naiveai wrote: post #266
nyxtom wrote: post #197

It's interesting that the HN community continues to make reference to the prospect of a decentralized internet when Git was built to be decentralized in the first place. In spite of this, we all have congregated around GitHub for the community and are shocked when the centralized source we've been using gets acquired by a company we don't trust. That's sort of the whole point of centralization, you can't trust it. Ma…

The whole world's demanding it. No one really knows how to do it efficiently, it seems.

It’s not just about efficiency, it’s about responsibility. I love decentralization when I can avoid dealing with BigCo, I hate it when I’m responsible for fighting spam, ensuring my services stay up, not getting hacked, and so on. All of these tasks are a requirement as soon as collaboration is in the picture.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#375

Post by richiezc »

lucb1e wrote: post #265
genofon wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree with Skype, but what actually happened with LinkedIn? I remember in pre-Microsoft times they asked me for my google email and password.. right not to log-ing with google but the email and password! I understand it's more LinkedIn's fault than Microsoft merit, but I just wanted to say, IMO there were never "good times" for LinkedIn

> what actually happened with LinkedIn? It used to be that it would only nag you to sign up or log in when trying to view extended profile attributes. Now it just requires you to log in to even view someone's name and function. It shows up in the search results alright, some day I should find a UA changer to spoof Google and see if they do IP checking or just UA header checking, but generally, they made it completely…

That's not a microsoft decision per se, my friend who was previously SEO PM at LinkedIn made this change to increase signups.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#376

Post by brazzledazzle »

sqs wrote: post #350
jxub wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SourceGraph tries to fix it, and the experience of searching, jump-to-definition and generally getting to grips with a codebase is way better there IMO. They also have browser plugins with integration to GitHub. I recommend you to check it out.

Sourcegraph CEO here. Glad you like Sourcegraph! Regardless of what happens with GitHub and Microsoft, we agree that developers need great code search.

Do you have an on-prem version (to pair with GitHub Enterprise)?

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#377

Post by ianwalter »

obl wrote: post #16

Tangentially related, but maybe microsoft could actually do that : why is github's search so terribly bad ? If they had developed a good powerful code search (custom semantic engine for most used languages, complex queries, exact/fuzzy matches for syntax, use of history, etc) they could have become the primary way you interact with code you don't know yet. As it stands now it's simply more efficient to clone and use…

Yea, Microsoft should acquire sourcegraph too.

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#379

Post by matthewmacleod »

nyxtom wrote: post #197

It's interesting that the HN community continues to make reference to the prospect of a decentralized internet when Git was built to be decentralized in the first place. In spite of this, we all have congregated around GitHub for the community and are shocked when the centralized source we've been using gets acquired by a company we don't trust. That's sort of the whole point of centralization, you can't trust it. Ma…

Well, centralisation also has a huge number of benefits, so it's not really a surprise.

The more important thing is to be in a position that makes it harder to be locked-in to a centralised provider. Fortunately Git makes that relatively easy – I could switch all of my work to Gitlab or Bitbucket with relatively little work.

There's more obviously a problem where Github is being used for issue tracking, PRs, and the general open-source community. I'm sure there will be a few scripts available to make migrating issues etc. to another provider relatively painless, since there's no great distributed solution for this at the moment. That just leaves the community aspect, which is going to be the hard bit…

Re: Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub

#380

Post by 0x0 »

indigochill wrote: post #339

Heck, I already prefer Gitlab and/or Bitbucket because they let me run free (or at least self-hosted in Gitlab's case, not sure what their hosted option's like) private repos. Github's just got the mindshare going for it. But maybe now that'll change.

Gitlab also lets you register private gitlab-runners on gitlab.com, which is a killer feature for running CI on setups that aren't plain docker-in-the-cloud (such as integration-testing apps that require resources on our LAN, or macOS/iOS builds with private keychain items that is much easier to configure on a local Mac). (A side bonus is that you don't even have to pay for any CI "minutes")
Post reply on HN