New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Microsoft is going to make Github all proprietary now.
There'll be only one single index.html page saying which bad things are going to happen to you if you dare typing git clone.
God forbid anyone should try to earn a living...
The community got a great place to freely develop projects for awhile and they got GitLab forever. So what's next? Run your own GitHub with GitLab on a..... _VPS
I don't even need to say what I like to say, right?
Embrace, extend, extinguish?
githubvsts vcTerrible news, as Microsoft mess up only, example: Skype used to be great not anymore as been bought by Microsoft and code completely messed up.
Raking in 7.5 billion is... earning a "living"? Fuck you.
Meanwhile gitlab homepage is loading slow af. I just hope for the very best that Microsoft won't change a damn thing about Github in a negative manner.#Pray4Github
Microsoft has been getting much more FOSS/Linux-friendly in recent years. Remember this is a company that 15 years ago was trying to sue Linux out of existence. Now they...
Not sure about total sense - I doubt Github was profitable or was on the cusp of being profitable - but it's typical. "Oh crap, another of our products (CodePlex) didn't work in the marketplace...let's go buy some credibility."
Indeed. Not that I follow the industry all that closely but have been aware of changes the past 25 years or so.
I find some older users will retain their gripe forever while others just think it's cool to slander Micro$oft.
There'll always be proprietary software and knowledge, else the daft cunts moaning about microsoft would soon realise they have no job.
To be fair, MS of 15 years ago and MS of now are pretty much two different entities.
Besides, eliminating unix is not possible at the moment. Might as well support them somewhat instead of blatantly blocking them.
I don't see a problem if all you used github for was public repos. If you have some private ones I can understand why you want to move them but microsoft lately has been moving towards more open code with the current CEO.
GitLab will replace github?
Some of us haven't forgotten that "getting chummy with the open community" was also the point of entry for their Embrace, Extend, Extinguish strategy.
So, here's the thing. Microsoft is, for such a large company, exceptionally good at getting ahead of the curve, and preserving their business by moving along with the market. Much better than other giants. But this also means that their business decisions can look like altruism.
Microsoft has increasingly been moving towards being a service provider rather than a software company - not because somebody internally decided that they could make a difference that way, but because that is where the market was moving.
With the increasing use of and reliance on open-source code, software has become nearly value-less. This means that to keep up, Microsoft has had to deemphasize their software, and increase their investment into services - an area where open-source can't eat their lunch. This is what got us things like Azure and Office 365.
Also in recent years, formerly Windows-only developers have been getting increasingly annoyed with Microsoft's lack of support for other platforms. Not because their user-facing software necessarily had to run on other platforms, but because software is becoming increasingly internet-connected, and the infrastructure that companies run usually doesn't run on Windows.
That has created a situation where many teams suddenly had to maintain two distinct stacks; eg. a .NET stack for user-facing software, and something entirely different for their (usually Linux-based) network infrastructure. This gets annoying fast, and it's led to the Microsoft-exclusive developer base slowly bleeding out, and moving towards cross-platform solutions (Python, Ruby, JS, Go, etc.).
As a result, Microsoft has tried to make their software increasingly more cross-platform to bridge this gap. SQL Server and .NET Core now run on Linux, so that you can use Microsoft products end-to-end for your software. WSL allows Windows-using developers to use the same development tools as eg. web developers, who often use Linux or OS X because it's just too frustrating on Windows.
The key takeaway here is this: None of this is altruism. None of this is "embracing the open-source world". All of this has had a very clear identifiable business case, and following the market has kept Microsoft competitive. This makes sense from the perspective of running a company, but it's important to recognize that Microsoft does what it does to benefit itself.
Right now, Microsoft's incentives align with those of the OSS community; in no small part thanks to said OSS community forcing Microsoft's hand. The problem is that this is no guarantee for the future - if at any point the circumstances change, Microsoft will just follow the lead of the market, even if that's at the expense of the OSS community.
What it all comes down to, is that Microsoft could never be trusted, and that it can still not be trusted. Right now it has incentives to act in ways that are beneficial to OSS. There is absolutely zero guarantee that this will be true in 5 or 10 years. Microsoft is a company that is out to make money and keep itself running at any cost, not a charity.
The problem with this is that Microsoft "does what it does to benefit itself". GitHub quotes "GitHub brings teams together to work through problems, move ideas forward, and learn from each other along the way." and also "Collaboration makes perfect". For such a community driven and collaborative platform, that lack of guarantee in the future just seems like a big ol' poop. Plus, we all know what happened to Skype.
You won't find me disagreeing there. That having been said, GitHub itself was never a particularly good open-source citizen, so in that sense not much has changed; I suspect that the only reason OSS-on-GitHub hasn't been fucked around with too much, is that GitHub would literally cease to exist if they weren't widely used by OSS projects.
GitHub has always been a centralized silo that benefited off its walled garden. The core difference after this acquisition is that Microsoft can afford to fuck over OSS projects, and the platform would still have value to them; because unlike independent GitHub, their primary income source isn't "enterprise usage of the platform".
Not sure why people use github over gitlab. I mean why do you have to pay for your repo to be private when gitlab offers that option as built-in? I personally use gitlab over github since it has ever existed.
Any chance Microsoft will leave GitHub run independently? Like how Warren Buffet treats his subsidiaries.
No one can feel independent with a 12 inches black ribbed strap-on up their backend.
Very unlikely. GitHub is currently having profitability issues, so evidently the current model isn't quite working. Microsoft isn't in the business of bankrolling unprofitable ventures, so they'll try to fix that somehow.
With superglue.
But Bill Gates is into charity nowadays right?
I hadn't noticed that Gitlab offers private repos even on their hosted version. Nice.
But they certainly can use the losses on Github to as a tax write-off. A company that size would definitely like to have a venture such as this to use as a tax writeoff. It gives the company publicity too, so it's like free advertising for them.
But gitlab is written in ruby on rails, right?
Ruby / RoR.
First, youll need live mail account..
Imo most important question is if they will rename it to Github 365.
No - Fuck You, comrade.
GitHub, by all accounts, was burning cash. To stay online, they needed to either 1) raise more cash from investors, 2) implement a profitable business model or 3) sell.
$7.5bn is not being divvied up by the founders. It's certainly not even all cash - but rather some cash + restricted stock options for key people that is ultimately calculated at $7.5bn for the news headlines.
First, any debts incurred (including salaries) will be paid. Second, investors who have been footing the cloud services bill will get a return on capital. I don't know what the founders' stake was - but it's certainly heavily diluted. But they earned it. Congrats to them.
Ironically, had they stayed independent by choosing option 1 or 2, there would probably be more complaints because GitHub would inevitably had to start charging users or enter into some marketing agreement(s) to sell B.S. over their platform.
According to the rumors, GitHub was initially discussing a $35m "marketing agreement" with Microsoft and that turned into an outright sale.
It makes 0 sense and cents for Microsoft to make GitHub unattractive to developers. The obvious thing is to market Azure on top of it, possibly by making it quicker & easier for developers to deploy commits to Azure.
They can run GitHub on Azure at practically negligible cost, so then operating GitHub is not so expensive anymore. The $7.5bn buys advertising right in front of developers.
Well we don't know that. We just assume it based on our very limited knowledge about Linus Thorvalds account.
I "picked out" your probably correct remark for another reason: Isn't there lots and lots of talk or even "advice" in the open source universe about many other ways to earn money with open source? Well, looking at the reality incl. the git/Linus case all that talk seems to be largely politically or even "religiously" motivated bla bla. Based on what I see even in the not so many cases where open source people really earn some money with their project it's usually not the developers but some others.
Regarding the Microsoft buys github issue I'll wait a bit before coming to a conclusion. Microsoft 2018 != Microsoft 1998 and github must have some business value too to be bought for billions of $. Translation: github isn't all open source happiness flow flow paradise but a business operation. Plus I'm quite sure that Microsoft didn't buy github to get their hands on all that source (yada yada shocked look). In fact Microsoft themselves have become a MAJOR contributor to software.
Personally I'm not concerned at all. I always look with mistrust at github and didn't need or like it but prefer fossil. But then I'm an old style guy and not a politicised FOSS groupie. Sometimes I do a small private project (like vps benchmark) and sometimes my client and I decide to open source parts of my/our work typically libraries. Just like in the 90ies without lots of hype and politics.
Funny sidenote: When I published vpsbench I noted that it seems quite hard to find some free "here's the software and source, have fun" hosting nowadays. Big fat foss project hosting with heaps of features (and quite some conditions and small print ...) no problem but a simple "here it is. grab it" 10 MB hosting seemed to be tricky to find.
Edit: Sorry, I meant "banking account" in the first paragraph. My bad.
Probably not, but it doesn't matter.
By all accounts, Torvalds is a multimillionaire, so nothing to worry about. Already back in 2007, he said in an interview (ITB = itbusiness.ca, LT = Linus Torvalds):
(From https://www.itbusiness.ca/news/torvalds-talks/10886 .)