611–620 of 840 posts
Seeing GitHub acquired, I can’t help but imagine that Gitlab would go that route sooner or later. Their free offering is even more extensive than GitHub’s, and I don’t think there’s visibility into whether their revenue from paid plans is enough to offset that. Since becoming backed by a major player is both a blessing (cash reserves to fuel the free offering!) and a curse (drive to increase shareholder value could g…
I am a GitLab user and have been for about 2 years now. With that being said, I think this acquisition makes a ton of sense strategically. Microsoft has really been trying to change their identity from being a stuffy close-source corporation to an open company that developers can rely on. And they have done pretty well at this. They open sourced .net, run MS SQL on Linux, and have released the WSL (which would have b…
So long github.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that come Monday morning all the reasonable critiques are buried at the bottom of the page and all the GitHub + MS love is upvoted to the top, hyping up all the "amazing business synergies". Multibillion dollar mergers like this are huge things, especially for with a big player acquiring a smaller beloved brand like GitHub. Makes one wonder how many of those leaks over the past week w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how is embracing a closed source for-profit company anything to do with embracing Open Source? Truly embracing open-source with .NET core would mean that, yes, even a proprietary product could make use of it. A debugger is extremely core to having a language being open-source and artificially limiting it to your own products is the exact opposite of 'embrace' Also, JetBrains does have an open-source debugger in the…
By that token Richard Stalman doesn't embrace open source. The Linux kernel isn't open source. Anything that is GPL is not open source, because you can't make proprietary code from GPL code.
This is like if Stallman released Emacs under the GPL, but kept the Elisp interpreter proprietary.
My problem is; if you're going to pretend to embrace open-source and then limit a core component this arbitrarily, you're not embracing open-source, you're still the old org afraid of competition.
I wonder if GitHub will stop development on Atom and move to VS Code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may sound like a harsh statement, but exactly because corporations are not like people, they seem to be harder to change, in my opinion. I'm not saying Microsoft can't change, but it's easy to forget that the main goal of any corporation is profit, specially when it's so big.
I think the profit motive is exactly why change happens. As soon as a company realizes it can make more $$$ with new strategy B than their original strategy A, then boom -- changed. (Sometimes you have to get rid of the old believers, but that already happened at Microsoft.) If you look at MSFT's stock price, it's ~tripled since Satya became CEO, after being stagnant for years. He seems incredibly committed to open-s…
I agree. They don't actually care about open source it's purely because it's profitable to their business. They'll close it without caring if it's not making them enough money or good will.
But I still hope this works. As long as maintaining open source projects is profitable to Microsoft then it gives incentives for other FLOSS projects to show that if such an anti open source company as Microsoft is willing to embrace it then there's good reasons to join in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LinkedIn still exists and still seems to think they are a separate company. Rumor has it that Satya is furious he still gets so many LinkedIn emails, but is keeping hands off.
> Rumor has it that Satya is furious he still gets so many LinkedIn emails, but is keeping hands off. Well, he's exhibiting far more self control than I would be able to. Linked-in has the worst email practices of any legitimate company I can think of.
Maybe it's ageism?!?! ;-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Friendly reminder: Skype was pure garbage before MS acquired it. I have no idea from where people got the idea that MS ruined Skype. Started the browser wars? Too bad the browser wars have been too small, because we obviously haven't learned anything from them.
> Skype was pure garbage before MS acquired it. You have a weird memory. Skype was a very nice thing back in ~2009-2010.