Live data from Hacker News

Dear-GitHub: Host Github by itself as an open source project

github.com

41–50 of 74 posts

Re: Dear-GitHub: Host Github by itself as an open source project

#41
post #6
post #2

Don’t matter if you say pretty please, if it aligns with their business they will do it. They’ve probably thought of this move already.

There is no way I can see them open sourcing GitHub. If you have studied the history of versioning control systems (ClearCear, Perforce, TFS, Subversion, etc.) you would know how insanely powerful controlling the hosting solution is. I can see Microsoft making private repos for free and/or making GitHub Enterprise free for the first 10 users though.

It's definitely powerful, but I don't think the power of github is in the actual product. Gitlab is much better in some important ways (IMHO of course), but it's still not seen much adoption. The power of Github is in the community and the fact that it's the defacto standard place to look for code. That would likely only increase if MS open sourced the code.

Re: Dear-GitHub: Host Github by itself as an open source project

#42
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Xamarin is an easy to use leading indicator because of Nat Friedman's involvement in both. Simply in choosing Nat Friedman as new CEO it is hard not to wonder if Microsoft at least has the intention to explore Open Source as an operating option for GitHub moving forward. > But, MS has not open sourced CodePlex, Visual Studio Team Foundation Server, Skype, Linkedin. [...] I see a difference between "programming tools"…

>LinkedIn has a large open source footprint: http://linkedin.github.io/ >More importantly, Azure has a ton of Open Source: https://azure.github.io/ Sure I get those examples of "bits and pieces" being open source. Likewise, Google open sources lots of things like Protobufs (BSD license), CityHash (MIT license), and Kubernetes (Apache license) -- but they don't open source their crown jewels of proprietary source code…

Right, that's mostly what I think. We might see a lot of individual puzzle pieces open sourced, but not see the top-to-bottom "full stack" overview/instruction set/orchestration tool for all of it. Like I said, you could probably cobble together most of Azure if you tried, but it's like getting a shuffled collection of Ikea flatpacks without any instructions and no allen wrenches. That's certainly a model GitHub could follow here.

> To me, it looks like MS is taking Github in the direction of a hosted service for full Application Lifecycle Management. (For example, add more features to compete with Jira.) Github-Enterprise could possibly eventually overtake Microsoft's own Team Foundation Server as the preferred release management tool.

In terms of that speculation I disagree. I don't see Microsoft adding Jira-like features to GitHub when they can already encourage people to use VSTS (Visual Studio Team Services) Work Items if they want the high touch issue tracking. There's already flows between GitHub's Issue tracker and VSTS, and that seems likely to increase. Which is very similar to the existing separation we already see Atlassian makes between Bitbucket Issues and Jira, with Atlassian working hard to upsell Jira to Bitbucket users with more complex Issue Tracking needs.

If anything, Microsoft is maybe in an even better position to make that transition and/or integration work, given the impression that it never feels like anyone inside Atlassian ever uses Bitbucket's own Issue Tracker day-to-day, yet Microsoft plainly today has teams in both GitHub Issues and VSTS, and needing to smartly straddle the "fence" between the two.

It sounds like Microsoft's intent seems similar with the rest of GitHub-related ALM. GitHub has gotten a lot of its support by being relatively ALM-agnostic. While there are many fans of Gitlab adding CI out of the box, there are also proponents that prefer the competitive GitHub Marketplace and the general ability to pick/choose CI/CD providers or other ALM tools.

Microsoft has already for years tried to position VSTS (and sibling project App Center) as the "best" ALM provider for GitHub CI/CD/Release management/etc. I don't expect that to change with them owning GitHub, and it's only in their favor I think to try to leave GitHub itself appearing relatively "ALM neutral" and leaving the upsell to GitHub's Marketplace.

Similarly, there are rumors/indications that GitHub Enterprise has underperformed in the marketplace versus the expense of maintaining its fork of the main GitHub codebase, and Microsoft's easier option is just to migrate its users to on-premises TFS. They'd likely lose hearts and minds doing that, but it seems more likely than migrating the other direction. I think, solely gut instinct, its more likely they just keep both around and let the users decide, at least in the immediate term, but if one is "losing out" to the other, I would currently put money on GitHub Enterprise as being the one to be canned.

Re: Dear-GitHub: Host Github by itself as an open source project

#43
I am going to be in the minority here, but why does HN always think all software should be free and open source? GitHub generates large revenue and provides immense value for organizations and companies. It's the same argument I see on HN about people not wanting to pay for Slack and going through insane hoops and efforts to run alternatives. Makes no sense being a technical founder. I truly believe in supporting great software with my wallet. If the organization decides to make their software open source... That's awesome and great, but starting outrage campaigns and public outcry I can't get behind. Microsoft is a public company and they have every right to monetize GitHub.

Re: Dear-GitHub: Host Github by itself as an open source project

#44
post #20

Yo dawg I heard you like GitHub, so I put GitHub on GitHub so you can contribute to GitHub using GitHub.

Replace with "Linux distribution", "compiler", or any other self-referential system https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hosting

Re: Dear-GitHub: Host Github by itself as an open source project

#45
post #40

I _hate_ people using "M$" un-ironically. It wasn't funny 10 years ago when it started and it's still not funny today. How can you take that one comment seriously with that "M$" part in it.

> How can you take that one comment seriously with that "M$" part in it.

Judge the comment on the merits of the data provided and opinion based on that and don't get hung up on a name?

"M$" may also be useful as an indicator of bias but again, it is not the whole comment.

Re: Dear-GitHub: Host Github by itself as an open source project

#46

I really don't see the value in open sourcing GitHub when Gitlab exists if you are looking for a replacement incase MS decides to go full tyrant - unless if you believe GitHub enterprise is an amazing project. If GitHub wasn't built from the start for hosted deployments, it will probably be both expensive and a pain in the neck to run. GitLab probably has it's issues, but I won't be surprised if there are assumptions…

GitHub Enterprise is built from the same codebase that runs GitHub.com. And GitHub Enterprise was designed from the beginning to run on your own hardware. As far as hardware requirements, well, that kinda depends on your workload. GitHub Enterprise system requirements were higher than GitLab but we found GitHub Enterprise much more reliable. GitLab will let you run on anything but they don't really know what will work. They're still trying to figure out how to scale gitlab.com which barely has any users compared to github.com. The experience at scale is huge.

Additionally, we found functionality like HA and DR were implemented very seamlessly in GitHub Etnerprise. Easy to set up and not a hassle once it's running. GitLab basically tells you to build your own HA which isn't something we're interested in doing.

Re: Dear-GitHub: Host Github by itself as an open source project

#47
post #3

Why? It’s free for open source, reasonable for enterprise and private use and I think you could build a better one starting from scratch. GitHub’s success is largely due to the network effect and it’s entrenched status as the canonical code repository. Besides libgit2, aka “the secret sauce”, is already open source. What are you waiting for?

Your reasons against "why" read more to me like "why not" as you listed things unaffected by whether they open source or not. The benefits for "why" are the same for all open source software and are not unique to this situation. The only question is if the costs are too great.

Re: Dear-GitHub: Host Github by itself as an open source project

#48
post #11

Like the other commenter said, if it aligns with their business interest, they will. That said, I do find it funny that essentially the "home" of most open source projects itself isn't open source. I'm not a heavy user of GitHub, as we use a self hosted instance of Gitlab at work, so my only use is browsing projects & throwing up my various side projects on it, so maybe someone can enlighten me on my next question. D…

I think you're right. The only "secret sauce" I could see them having are some unique operational/architectural features of their back-end code that make sense for an entity at Github's scale. No instance of Gitea/Gitlab is even in the same ballpark wrt repo count and traffic than github.com, obviously.

Re: Dear-GitHub: Host Github by itself as an open source project

#49
post #16
post #3

Why? It’s free for open source, reasonable for enterprise and private use and I think you could build a better one starting from scratch. GitHub’s success is largely due to the network effect and it’s entrenched status as the canonical code repository. Besides libgit2, aka “the secret sauce”, is already open source. What are you waiting for?

Github has had stunning stability. I bet their architecture is nontrivial, that dozens of parts of their code are tied intricately to their architecture, and that opensourcing only the bits that will run on typical AMIs or on debian^Wdevuan would be little more than opensourcing helloworld.rb.

You can already get GitHub in an AMI; it’s called GitHub Enterprise.

Re: Dear-GitHub: Host Github by itself as an open source project

#50
post #23
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure. Almost every GitHub competitor does those things better: phabricator, gitlab, etc...

Maybe "secret sauce" is the wrong term. People ended up choosing GitHub purely because of network effects, I think. But those features are the "lock-in" preventing individual projects from easily migrating away. If Git repos just "had" wikis, issues, etc. inside them, the lock-in wouldn't be there, so people would be switching between Git hosts all the time—and there wouldn't really be much value in a "git host" at a…

This. Git is not a best in class solution, and the community that has coalesced around it has predictably not chosen best in class tooling.

This is okay. It's just source control at the end of the day.

Post reply on HN