It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionMicrosoft is acquiring GitHub(61 posts)(61 posts)
(61 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 06, 2018
avatar
amund: GitHub have had financial problems for years and the only way they were making money was from private repos and that hasn't really been working out. A lot of devs use self hosting for private stuff and GitHub for open source because that's where the users are. Also Microsoft have several open source projects and put a lot of work into open source, especially on GitHub for years. Microsoft stealing work is my least worries. Besides, Google have also been interested in buying GitHub and I would without a doubt prefer Microsoft over Google.

Microsoft have a lot to prove because of their history and there's been changes that has gained devs trust in them again. I will continue use GitHub, at least for now.
I personally know several companies which use private repos there. And another several of which it's hearsay. All those companies are rather small - for them GitHub is a cheap and reliable way to use git. Small companies are often the "motor of innovation", guys with great ideas.

Why would MS pay 7.5 billion? That's no peanuts, even for a company like this.
Either GitHub is a lot more profitable than you think, or they're after something else. Remember they are held responsible by their shareholders - they must have a plan which justifies this kind of money.
Posted June 06, 2018
MS GitHub interface leaked ; ) (javascript must be turned on)

Looks like GitLab is taking an advantage of the situation: GitLab Ultimate and Gold now free for education and open source
Posted June 06, 2018
avatar
amund: GitHub have had financial problems for years and the only way they were making money was from private repos and that hasn't really been working out. A lot of devs use self hosting for private stuff and GitHub for open source because that's where the users are. Also Microsoft have several open source projects and put a lot of work into open source, especially on GitHub for years. Microsoft stealing work is my least worries. Besides, Google have also been interested in buying GitHub and I would without a doubt prefer Microsoft over Google.

Microsoft have a lot to prove because of their history and there's been changes that has gained devs trust in them again. I will continue use GitHub, at least for now.
avatar
toxicTom: I personally know several companies which use private repos there. And another several of which it's hearsay. All those companies are rather small - for them GitHub is a cheap and reliable way to use git. Small companies are often the "motor of innovation", guys with great ideas.

Why would MS pay 7.5 billion? That's no peanuts, even for a company like this.
Either GitHub is a lot more profitable than you think, or they're after something else. Remember they are held responsible by their shareholders - they must have a plan which justifies this kind of money.
It's huge amount of money and it's anyones guess why they would pay that, maybe something to do with Google who knows. I'm sure they have a long-term plan, would be stupid otherwise but it doesn't mean it has to be a bad thing for the open source community or the users that use it. I would have preferred GitHub not being owned by a large corporation. This won't be profitable for Microsoft if the users don't trust their service, whatever that might be.

At this point, to me at least, Microsoft seems like a different company compared to 10 years ago when you're looking at development and attitudes toward open source. Because of this I'm willing to give them a chance, I have seen improvements in transparency when it comes to concerns about privacy in the VS Code editor and wasn't expecting that when I started using it.
Posted June 06, 2018
I never understood why people had to have a public git. I know people like a portfolio and all, but why not just HTTP host your git repo if you want to, and, if not, pick it up with SSH or, really, any other protocol? I thought the big advantage of git and mercurial over the others were that they were decentralized when you needed them to be.

EDIT: So how long until the new EULA that they own your code and can take it from you at any time?
Post edited June 06, 2018 by kohlrak
Posted June 06, 2018
avatar
amund: This won't be profitable for Microsoft if the users don't trust their service, whatever that might be.
I'm convinced that the knowledge contained there right now is worth the price, even if all users stop using it now.

avatar
kohlrak: I never understood why people had to have a public git.
What do you mean "public"? I'm talking about private repos for internal code - not open source.
I don't know how it's now, but a few years back setting up your own git repository was major PITA... too much work (or money) for small company to invest in if you can just rent it for a fistful of dollars.


avatar
amund: At this point, to me at least, Microsoft seems like a different company compared to 10 years ago when you're looking at development and attitudes toward open source.
They promote open source when it suits them. In reality they fight with fire and sword if ie. public services think about using open source solutions. See Munich or that town on the UK (can't remember the name right now...).
Post edited June 06, 2018 by toxicTom
Posted June 06, 2018
avatar
kohlrak: I never understood why people had to have a public git.
avatar
toxicTom: What do you mean "public"? I'm talking about private repos for internal code - not open source.
I don't know how it's now, but a few years back setting up your own git repository was major PITA... too much work (or money) for small company to invest in if you can just rent it for a fistful of dollars.
Wasn't it just "git init --bare" or something like that? I google it every now and then, but it's really that simple. Was it ever more than that?
Posted June 06, 2018
avatar
kohlrak: Wasn't it just "git init --bare" or something like that? I google it every now and then, but it's really that simple. Was it ever more than that?
To set up a server? No.
Posted June 06, 2018
avatar
kohlrak: Wasn't it just "git init --bare" or something like that? I google it every now and then, but it's really that simple. Was it ever more than that?
avatar
toxicTom: To set up a server? No.
git runs via files, and doesn't have a dedicated daemon, which is probably where your problem comes from. SAMBA (windows network drives), SFTP, FTP (this one might be complex, i'm not sure), etc will all work. The idea is, you just need to establish a filesharing connection and let it rip.
Posted June 06, 2018
avatar
amund: At this point, to me at least, Microsoft seems like a different company compared to 10 years ago when you're looking at development and attitudes toward open source.
avatar
toxicTom: They promote open source when it suits them. In reality they fight with fire and sword if ie. public services think about using open source solutions. See Munich or that town on the UK (can't remember the name right now...).
Well, they contribute to open source projects that aren't their own, they are very active in the open source community. I'm expecting them to use open source or develop such projects when it suits them, I'm fine with that. If they fight open source "behind the scene" I'm not too sure about, don't seem like it in recent years at least but yeah they did in the past under different management.
Posted June 06, 2018
avatar
amund: Well, they contribute to open source projects that aren't their own, they are very active in the open source community. I'm expecting them to use open source or develop such projects when it suits them, I'm fine with that. If they fight open source "behind the scene" I'm not too sure about, don't seem like it in recent years at least but yeah they did in the past under different management.
https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2409808/microsoft-bullied-mps-over-government-switch-to-open-source-standards
Posted June 06, 2018
avatar
amund: Well, they contribute to open source projects that aren't their own, they are very active in the open source community. I'm expecting them to use open source or develop such projects when it suits them, I'm fine with that. If they fight open source "behind the scene" I'm not too sure about, don't seem like it in recent years at least but yeah they did in the past under different management.
avatar
toxicTom: https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2409808/microsoft-bullied-mps-over-government-switch-to-open-source-standards
That's not nice if that's something they did, heard similar stories 15 years ago or so but that doesn't change the fact their contribution in open source and developing for Linux, replacing old technologies with open source and so on.
Posted June 06, 2018
avatar
toxicTom: https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2409808/microsoft-bullied-mps-over-government-switch-to-open-source-standards
avatar
amund: That's not nice if that's something they did, heard similar stories 15 years ago or so but that doesn't change the fact their contribution in open source and developing for Linux, replacing old technologies with open source and so on.
Microsoft isn't nice. The sued a DNS provider (no-ip.com) ex parte (meaning they couldn't even invite the party being sued to court), bringing forth false arguments that there was communication with the DNS provider (when there wasn't), and won the case. The courts awarded MS with all the domain names, temporarily, so MS could spy on who was connecting to the domains. Meanwhile, security cams, baby cams, email servers, anything that relied on their domains basically went down, because they couldn't even competently spy on people. It took days to recover the damage and get things working again. IIRC, this was millions of servers.

IIRC, since microsoft broke the agreement to only spy on what was going on (out of shear incompetence), they gave everything back to the DNS provider in shame.
Post edited June 06, 2018 by kohlrak
Posted June 06, 2018
That’s funny nobody mentioned yet that gitlab.com servers are hosted by… Microsoft ;)
Posted June 06, 2018
avatar
vv221: That’s funny nobody mentioned yet that gitlab.com servers are hosted by… Microsoft ;)
Sorry, not sorry.
Posted June 06, 2018
avatar
vv221: That’s funny nobody mentioned yet that gitlab.com servers are hosted by… Microsoft ;)
They are moving Google servers now https://venturebeat.com/2018/04/06/why-and-how-gitlab-abandoned-microsoft-azure-for-google-cloud/
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionMicrosoft is acquiring GitHub(61 posts)(61 posts)
(61 posts)