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

581–590 of 671 posts

Re: Hello, GitHub

#581

Post by LukaD »

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…

How is Nat Friedman an ideal candidate to run GitHub? Have you seen pre MS Xamarin?

Re: Hello, GitHub

#582

Post by k__ »

grumdan wrote: post #580
k__ wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the impression VSCode had the technical superior plugin system and I found it much more performant. Atom had more plugins for some time, but they had mediocre quality.

> I had the impression VSCode had the technical superior plugin system From my very limited exposure to VSCode's plugins, it seems they are a lot more limited in how they can change the editor's behavior compared to elisp code in Emacs[1]; if Atom plugins are similarly flexible, then I'm not sure you can say it's (strictly) technically superior if you can only implement a small subset of what you can do in competitor…

I meant superior to Atom and not to Emacs.

As far as I know, the VSCode plugins run in their own process, which makes the editor much more responsive when it loaded many plugins.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#583

Post by Lordarminius »

hinkley wrote: post #497
adrianmalacoda wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fellow Atom user here. According to Lee Dohm, Open Source Community Manager at GitHub, "Atom remains key to GitHub. Our product roadmap is set, and the team will continue all of their work." [0] [0] https://github.com/atom/atom/issues/17454#issuecomment-39442...

In a buyout, always be sensitive to situations where promises of status quo come from someone who is not in control of the situation. Quite common for new owners to let old employees make promises they can’t keep and then make them disappear and change plans.

This.

Not saying that Microsoft has a plan to 'embrace extend extinguish', but if they did, this is how they would go about it.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#584

Post by tome »

SwellJoe wrote: post #340
sequoia wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Atom I could be wrong but my perception is that Atom is losing market share to VSCode all on its own– new devs are much more likely to adopt vscode & no growth ~= decline for an editor. Couple that with the fact that no one pays for Atom... IMO They don't need to "kill" atom, they just need to wait a couple years, at which point it will just Yet Another Editor down the list with TextWrangler et al., if the next Ato…

This sounds entirely anecdotal. I haven't seen any significant exodus from Atom to VSCode among people I interact with. It seems like folks moving from other editors are about as likely to choose Atom as VSCode, and the things that used to lead to people choosing one or the other (i.e. performance, VSCode only opening one project at a time, the stupid huge icon bar in VSCode, etc.) have been resolved...Atom is now re…

> This sounds entirely anecdotal. I haven't seen any significant exodus from Atom to VSCode among people I interact with.

Were those two sentences in the wrong order?!

Re: Hello, GitHub

#586

Post by [deleted] »

jameshart wrote: post #514
8_hours_ago wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assumed that Microsoft has security policies to ensure that all confidential information (e.g. non-open-source code and strategic discussions) is stored on infrastructure controlled by Microsoft. The company I work at is very careful about keeping our intellectual property on our infrastructure, and I am surprised that a larger company like Microsoft doesn't have similar policies.

Microsoft aims to make most of its money in the immediate future by convincing every major business in the world to let MS host that company's email, internal documents, spreadsheets and powerpoints on Microsoft's office365 servers. It would be highly contradictory for MS to take the position, as a matter of policy, that it is too risky for them to ever place confidential business data onto a third party cloud-hosted…

[deleted]

Re: Hello, GitHub

#587

Post by lloeki »

singingfish wrote: post #540
rapind wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything that came out after vi is just another editor.

I picked up emacs in 1993 when I first got my hands on a unix system, and it was the only thing there that made remotely any sense. Fast forward to 2018, I'm still using emacs, and the upside is I haven't had to learn anything new in the intervening 25 years.

Please refrain to divert the discussion towards operating systems, we're talking about text editors here, for which ed is the standard.

https://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed.msg.html

Re: Hello, GitHub

#588

Post by HelloWorldInWS »

rendaw wrote: post #567
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…

Contrarily, all I've seen is people making quantified statements of support. What I haven't seen is a moralistic rejection. Microsoft tried to kill Windows gaming, they tried to kill Linux, they tried to kill Firefox, and countless other things. Their operating system design is nearly abusive and even their open source development (tracking, licensing) has been lined with traps. I want nothing more than for them to d…

> Microsoft tried to kill Windows gaming

Huh? If you mean "gaming on Windows", I can't imagine how that could possibly be true, and if they tried, either nobody got the memo or they did a really bad job at trying. PC gaming has always been defacto Windows gaming. If you mean "Windows Games", that's still a thing, they're just integrating closer with their XBox platform, which makes perfect sense given that XBox is integrating closer with Windows 10 from the other side.

> they tried to kill Firefox

So did Google (they're still trying). So did Apple. Are you holding grudges against either of them?

> Their operating system design is nearly abusive

Heavily subjective. Windows has had its regressive moments, but overall it's consistently been more usable than anything on the market. 95 was a joy, 98 was a joy, XP was a joy, Vista was bad, 7 was a joy, 8 was bad, 10 is amazing. Compare that to MacOS* which only started competing with OSX and peaked at 10.5 (Leopard) and has been basically going slowly downhill since, with regressive behaviors, hostility to anyone that doesn't want to live in their walled garden, hostility to legacy software (many Windows XP programs still run perfectly with explicit compatibility settings, meanwhile OSX barely supports apps that are built for 3 major releases back-- that's only 3 years of support) and deprecation/removal of core OS APIs with zero intention to replace them. You want abusive? Try developing on a platform that competes against its own developer community and keeps APIs private for competitive advantage. Try developing on a platform that strong-arms you into paying yearly fees just so you can deploy applications that work out of the box on client machines. Comparatively, Apple has been much more hostile to developer communities than Microsoft ever has.

> I want nothing more than for them to disappear

Clear indication of an unhealthy long-kept grudge. Even if Microsoft has done all the things you claim, you don't really have a moral high ground if you're sitting there rooting for their failure. You can feel free to not use their products, but to want them and all of their customers to fail because you don't like what they've done in the past isn't really a "moralistic" viewpoint, it's just brooding.

...and you're going to have to move past the brooding if you want to make it to Acceptance.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#589

Post by raesene9 »

Iv wrote: post #521
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…

People who have known Microsoft and struggle with their tech and unfair practices in the 90s are skeptic because we have seen this movie already. How many "new Microsoft" have we seen already? "Will they follow through on these commitments? Will they continue to listen to the community?" No and no. Microsoft is not in the business of making good software, it is a PR firm, an awesome marketing department with tons of…

I too was around in IT in the 90's, but I have a different take.

To me Microsoft under Nadella have changed substantially. they're more open and more collaborative. Sure they want to make money, but that's a given for a corporation.

As to NIH, well I was at KubeConEU and the Microsoft engineers on the Microsoft stand were running Macbooks, and the Microsoft Keynote speaker was running an Ubuntu desktop, so it maybe isn't quite as cast-iron as it used to be.

Re: Hello, GitHub

#590

Post by HelloWorldInWS »

Stranger43 wrote: post #341
Fnoord wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nat Friedman, although I was not familiar with him prior to this, seems like an ideal candidate to run GitHub. Nat Friedman is a legend in the open source community. He founded Ximian in '99 with Miguel de Icaza, who both meant a lot for the Gnome community (e.g. via products such as Ximian Evolution) and Mono (FOSS .NET for *NIX). They got bought by Novell where he also got a top position. Nat has been busy with F…

He is the perfect transition guy, who is likely going to be replaced in a few years time when MS decide they want to capitalize on the money they spend on a un-profitable but popular service. Which is a pattern we have seen from their takeover of hotmail and more recently with skype, where they also waited a few years before starting the transition from independent brand to a sub brand under one of Microsoft estates.…

I think everyone can agree that Microsoft is going to push Azure very hard once they start sinking their teeth into GitHub-- that's not surprising.

However, I'm very skeptical about the idea that GitHub is going to somehow become an Azure-only walled garden. It makes little sense business-wise. The entire point of buying GitHub was to acquire an audience that they are aware is not necessarily interested in Azure or their stack. Forcing it on them will only cause them to leave (there is plenty of competition in the code hosting space now), which will in turn reduce revenue. I give MS enough credit to know that the only way they succeed in this space is to provide value, not vendor lock-in. This is true now, and it will be even more true in 5 years when other big companies inevitably start following Microsoft into this space and competing for market share.

If they wanted to just sell services to people already using MS products, they already had VSTS for that.

Post reply on HN