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
It was more that the kernel developers were allowed to use BitKeeper for free as long as they didn't try to reverse-engineer it. But then Tridgell started to try to reverse-engineer it, the owners of BitKeeper revoked the free use of BitKeeper, and Torvalds got angry at Tridgell.
The rest is history. (Torvalds liked BitKeeper and wanted to use something comparable.)
There's no reason to think Linus profited from this. He wrote git which is GPL.
This is what I've seen as well.
Companies don't go looking for tax writeoffs, because that's spending a dollar to save spending 30 cents with the government. Companies use tax writeoffs when they can, but no one goes looking for one.
Now there may be some other business value that balances out the losses and then MSFT would benefit from the taxes - sure. But long-term, Github will need to be profitable.
Frankly, how can Github not be profitable? Enthusiastic userbase and the software has not radically evolved in years. Nor is anyone asking for it to. I suspect Github was like a lot of free money startups - grossly bloating dev and admin teams, lots of money spent on bullshit, tons of employee perks, etc.
I'm not sure why that is relevant, unless you're thinking Microsoft would be motivated to rip out all of Github's code and replace it with ASP.NET. I would be very surprised if that happened.
Given the history, it's kind of ironic that BitKeeper was open-sourced a couple of years ago. One way of understanding this is that Git basically killed BitKeeper.
Sorry, you're right - BitKeeper, not Bitbucket.
As I recall, Tridgell's initial reverse engineering some something super clever like...telnetting to a port and typing HELP :-)
And Linus was a dick over it: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/14/torvalds_attacks_tridgell/
Calm, calm, Oracle bought MySQL and it's still around and very healthy.
Uhm no, MariaDB is ahead of MySQL. Same with Libre office way ahead of Open Office.
A propos "Microsoft can't be trusted". Keep the context in mind. Someone here worded ist quite well: The investors/shareholders (and the management) of github is throwing millions of users under the bus.
But wait, no, that can't be true because you know Microsoft is always evil and anyone in the foss universe is always good. Including those who now cash in and "throw their millions of users under the bus".
Yeah right.
From what I see there is no Microsoft but there are multiple Microsofts. There's the Gates Microsoft, there is the more brutal Ballmer version of Microsoft and there is the Nadella Microsoft and that current Microsoft has been driven by Ballmer into a position that is quite far away from the position Nadella wants it to be and thinks it NEEDS to be.
Can Microsoft be trusted re. github? I guess so because I see 7.5 billion reasons.
Microsoft has everything one needs to run ones own github - except the millions of users. So Microsoft buying github and then fucking those users is like you or me buying a nice car and then setting it on fire. I don't think that will happen. Plus I think we can be sure that Nadella would have a VERY ugly shareholder meeting trying to explain why he burned 7.5 bln $ which even for Microsoft isn't pocket change.
TLDR: We do NOT NEED to trust Microsoft. Fucking the github users is about as probable as Nadella setting Microsoft HQ on fire. After all those users are what Microsoft wanted and payed for.
But of course Microsoft and Oracle and the likes are companies and hardcore heavyweights at that. They live in a universe that is quite different from the foss universe. BUT they have decided/understood two important things: They want some interaction/connection with the foss universe and they need to accept some foss universe rules to do that successfully.
Being at that let's be honest. There is plenty of lies and half truths in the foss universe too. github for example was a COMMERCIAL operation not a feel well summer camp. It just accepted some foss universe rules the most important of which seems to be to LOOK nice and friendly and foss (just like the big corps except for the "foss" part and even that has changed).
So what's going to happen? My guess: Microsoft demonstratively playing nice, maybe even with some kind of nice "contract with the developers" will continue to loose some github customers anyway but so what. gitlab and some others surfing the wave are getting a load of new customers which to serve they are not at all prepared and hence quite many will leave soon. Plus I expect Microsoft to make some nice offers/pricing.
In the end I guess everyone will win. github users will profit from a github with deep pockets and high pressure to play nice and Microsoft will win because they get what they were after and what they payed 7.5 bln $ for which is a considerable shift in perception and position (away from Ballmer Microsoft towards Nadella Microsoft) and a better and deeper understanding of and access to and place in the foss universe.
@mksh
Brillant argumentation! And very tolerant of differing views too.
Yeah, i have huge respect for crystal balls.
I don't think they'll do much changes which will force developer to look for alternatives. Why will they? Why are people freaking about it?
They might integrate/promote some of their products like Azure (which, probably, will help developers only) to it.
Yeah, i have huge respect for crystal balls.
Thank you.
Don't see what the outrage is about.
Everyone is trying to make a buck.
It'd edgier and alludes to smarts if you say something snarky about it. But you're right, and others are right to hold some reservations, but I doubt that many people here are genuinely invested in it either way.
There goes the neighbourhood. Wonder how long it takes them to ruin it.
I mostly use bitbucket these days anyways. You don't need to buy a subscription to set your repos to private.
How does one ruin a sinking ship?
What was sinking about it? I found it quite useful. Probably 3/4 of all the software I use is on github.
Huh? What was sinking about it. I used it all the time for forking other projects. Probably 3/4 of the software I use is on there.
They were rapidly burning through the 2nd round of VC funding, well on track to being liquidated or bought out.
Github was never going to turn a profit or break even, it simply wasn't in their business model.
Please
We have to respect some people's decision to move to GitLab or alternatives. Many of us spend money on not using Microsoft products.
This applies to hardcore Mac / Hipsters Devs (the usual vim fans).
This also applies to Linux hardcore users.
GitLab used to run on Azure. Do they have their own DCs now?
and what's wrong with Microsoft?
It's 2018, time to move on from your grudge against MS...
Imagine Microsoft giving free private repo on Github.
people will stop talking about gitlab, and start writing about how awesome github.
Gitlab 'paid' people to tweet to get discount on some of their plan.
Could have been worse. Oracle could have acquired them. They sure made a mess out of MySQL and Java after they acquired Sun.
I have a deep respect for people who roll their own systems and bring their personal ethics into their computing choices. I know people who only use Linux/*BSD and only use free (as in Stallman) software, and it's universally for ethical reasons. I'm totally cool with that and I admire them because they're putting their values ahead of their own personal convenience in an age where whole industry sectors exist to enhance personal convenience.
Rock on, those of you reading this in your Epiphany browser on gNewSense Linux on your Yeeloong laptop.
However, Apple customers...give me a break.
I'm typing this in Safari on a MacBook wearing an Apple Watch listening to music on my AirPods streamed from my iPhone, so I guess you could say I shop local here in the USA. But these choices of mine are purely 100% preferences...there's no nobility to them. And frankly Apple is every bit as grim as Microsoft, only less egalitarian.
Honestly, most Mac users I know are either (1) hyper-clueful IT pros, (2) art-damaged hipster freaks who can barely handle one mouse button much less two, or (3) rich elderly people who just bought the most expensive one when they went shopping for a computer.
I've been developing for years, I must say I don't understand the culture behind developers using a MacBook for everything, specially if you don't code on xcode or compile iOS apps.
Three type of MacBook users:
1- The clueless that just buy apple because they can.
2- The dev that buy's a Mac to use VIM.
3- The dev that buy's a Mac to install Parallel and run Windows on it.