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

What is wrong with Microsoft buying GitHub

jacquesmattheij.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 228 posts

Re: What is wrong with Microsoft buying GitHub

#81

Post by onion2k »

mixedbit wrote: post #70
onion2k wrote: post #13

Assuming GitHub was actually losing money and couldn't fix that problem quickly enough it's fair to assume they had to sell, and it's reasonable to believe there aren't that many companies who could have bought them if you think an understanding of the domain is important, then you're really limited to Facebook (user surveillance, adverts), Apple (bad at software, not developer friendly), Google (user surveillance, a…

How about Atlassian?

That would essentially be a merge with BitBucket, so people would complain about there being less choice.

Re: What is wrong with Microsoft buying GitHub

#82

Post by Lordarminius »

onion2k wrote: post #13

Assuming GitHub was actually losing money and couldn't fix that problem quickly enough it's fair to assume they had to sell, and it's reasonable to believe there aren't that many companies who could have bought them if you think an understanding of the domain is important, then you're really limited to Facebook (user surveillance, adverts), Apple (bad at software, not developer friendly), Google (user surveillance, a…

The real lesson here is that GitHub should have tried to develop a profitable business model by increasing the range of products services they provided and experimenting with universal tiered pricing.

Re: What is wrong with Microsoft buying GitHub

#83

Post by mpartel »

guardian5x wrote: post #40
mpartel wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another recent example: lockdown of ARM-based Windows machines, preventing the installation of other operating systems.

You mean like Android or iOS?

Like iOS yes, and some, but not all, Android manufacturers/phones.

"Others do it too" is not a very good justification in my mind.

Re: What is wrong with Microsoft buying GitHub

#84

Post by merinowool »

raesene9 wrote: post #4

The idea that some companies must be forever tainted by their misdeads in the past seems odd to me. Companies change leadership, direction and style and it seems odd to suggest that there's some underlying quality which means that, regardless of that, you can never trust them (or in reverse that you should always trust a company you once trusted) There seems to be a trope with Microsoft that they're still the same co…

Microsoft is pure evil

- they wanted to access my computer after I upgraded cpu and motherboard as Windows 10 deactivated. That is despite I have full retail version. It took three days so that they acknowledged they won't get remote access. They required me to run some weird binaries to activate Windows again. That was super creepy.

- Soon after I bought VS2015 pro, VS2017 was released. They didn't want to give me a refund so I would get VS2017 or didn't offer upgrade price. Consultants were rude.

Windows is a spy machine. I only run it for software that doesn't work on Linux.

I hope Microsoft dies.

I am in the process of moving my stuff off of GitHub.

Re: What is wrong with Microsoft buying GitHub

#85

Post by diffeomorphism »

raesene9 wrote: post #4

The idea that some companies must be forever tainted by their misdeads in the past seems odd to me. Companies change leadership, direction and style and it seems odd to suggest that there's some underlying quality which means that, regardless of that, you can never trust them (or in reverse that you should always trust a company you once trusted) There seems to be a trope with Microsoft that they're still the same co…

> The idea that some companies must be forever tainted by their misdeads in the past seems odd to me.

That sounds odd because pretty much nobody has that idea. The alternative to looking too much at history is not to ignore history completely.

Re: What is wrong with Microsoft buying GitHub

#86

Post by rbanffy »

raesene9 wrote: post #4

The idea that some companies must be forever tainted by their misdeads in the past seems odd to me. Companies change leadership, direction and style and it seems odd to suggest that there's some underlying quality which means that, regardless of that, you can never trust them (or in reverse that you should always trust a company you once trusted) There seems to be a trope with Microsoft that they're still the same co…

> senior leadership aren't the same people and I'd imagine neither are the staff.

This is largely irrelevant. Saying Microsoft makes a lot of money from hosting Linux workloads on Linux machines does not change the fact they'd make even more profit if Google and AWS were unable to compete. In that regard, open source is a tool to lure workloads into an environment Microsoft can control and shape to its will.

Microsoft's incentives are still aligned with harming the parts of the open-source ecosystem that don't run on Windows. That has not changed (and won't, as long as they make and sell proprietary software platforms).

Re: What is wrong with Microsoft buying GitHub

#88

Post by kmonsen »

jopsen wrote: post #57
tekproxy wrote: post #10

Microsoft used to be bad (M$) but if you haven't noticed you can now run Linux on Windows and sql server runs on Linux. We're in the twilight zone bro; all bets are off.

Where is Microsoft office for Linux? You can buy it for OS X. Sure, I don't need it and could care less.. just saying.

You can use the online tools on Linux.

Re: What is wrong with Microsoft buying GitHub

#89

Post by sametmax »

katnegermis wrote: post #9
jasonvorhe wrote: post #2

> I’ve deleted my GitHub account, I’ll find a way to replace it and if you’re halfway clever so should you. So clever.

I can't think of a worse way to get your point across.

Agreed, as much as I dislike the acquisition, even I just wait and see. I'm setting up a migration plan right now of course, but I'm not going to activate it unless I have a good reason to.

Re: What is wrong with Microsoft buying GitHub

#90

Post by saintPirelli »

raesene9 wrote: post #4

The idea that some companies must be forever tainted by their misdeads in the past seems odd to me. Companies change leadership, direction and style and it seems odd to suggest that there's some underlying quality which means that, regardless of that, you can never trust them (or in reverse that you should always trust a company you once trusted) There seems to be a trope with Microsoft that they're still the same co…

Considering your point, what has Microsoft done since the 90's to make you believe they had a change of heart/culture/orientation?
Post reply on HN