With all that said, things have changed a lot over at GitHub over the past 2-3 years, so I can't say I'm all that surprised that this was the outcome. Restructures, scandals, and some crazy comments over the few years has led me to believe that GitHub probably isn't the same company that the development community embraced. For that reason, I can't see Microsoft doing a "Skype" and merging GitHub into their platforms. Developers are fickle, and if Microsoft mess with GitHub then it's not only a huge blow to the relations they've been trying to build for the past few years, it's a guaranteed way to see developers flock to the next big service (i.e. GitLab).
Given that GitHub is quite proudly built on Ruby, I can't see them wanting to switch things up from a tech perspective. GitHub is stable, and it's tech stack is capable of staying up despite some major DDoS attacks.
If anything, I think this is an opportunity for Microsoft to introduce themselves to the Ruby and Rails teams, and to finally resolve the issues that stop Windows from being a first-class citizen in the Ruby world. If they can do this through both Windows and the Windows Subsystem for Linux then I think they'll be on to a winner. It's a capture of a much-loved service, and an opportunity to bring a mature set of tools into their domain.
Disclaimer: this is just my personal opinion.
GitHub more complex than todo-list-on-steroids app so a platform change would not make any real sense. MS today may still have some of its old habits but they do seem to have purged a lot of the "not invented here" problem that caused much embarrassment when the first attempts to migrate HotMail over to MS technologies failed. It also has pretty good integration with relevant MS tools (VS & VS.code, etc.).
I expect to see them moving the base infrastructure over to Azure, but non-MS technologies are well enough supported on the platform so that won't require any notable changes to the main codebase of the product itself (though perhaps some rework of the deployment processes to make them more optimal for their new target network?). These days they care a lot more about what runs on Azure than what is written using .Net and even what runs on Windows, and are comfortable releasing their own code using other tech (VS.code being based on Electron being the first example that springs to mind). They'd prefer you used an MS stack from top to bottom of course, but they are more than happy for projects to use other components in/on Azure.
It'll be interesting to see how they would position it alongside TFS, as there is a lot of overlap between the two products. My guess is they'd keep pushing TFS for people who are completely MS shops and GH for people with more varied stacks.
(self reply as it is too late to edit)
As pointed out in another location I post: Electron was created at GitHub and they are its primary maintainer which may have had some bearing on the decision, and a wider effect as it could touch many other projects. Though as Electron is open source there is always the fork option if the community doesn't like the direction MS go with it.
Looks like their will be two sets of automatic posts on news of any project that used Electron: those bemoaning its use because it is Electron and those bemoaning its use because MS!
Meanwhile, I'd really like for people to stop hating Microsoft just because "Microsoft".
OK, I respect the call for keeping an open mind. Always a good approach. But let's not forget all of the moves toward a friendlier Microsoft/Linux world looks suspiciously like "Embrace"
I for one am willing to keep an open mind, but will be following these types of developments closely.
I hope to be proven wrong.
I would like to know how much it is costing Microsoft to fix that damaged reputation so that other executives will know if they do this it will end up costing at least X amount.
If their 'Embrace' looks like 'Yes we are compatible with...' and their 'Extend' like 'If you use our layer you can also do...' then people stay sceptical.
Instead their 'Embrace' should be 'How can we help you with your open source product?' and their 'Extend': 'Here are patches that fixes problems, improves performance and implement community wanted features.'
It seems companies like this always try to hold the door to 'Extinguish' open.
After all, what's the point of building software, if it's never embraced, aka, used?
Hence the justified caution and monitoring of a known extinguisher.
“Embrace” is happening everywhere these days. Don’t sound the alarm until you see Extend.
Sidenote: looks like I/O performance is really not that bad in most cases already, and sometimes even faster than Linux distros like Ubuntu: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=wsl-febr...
And unix developers complain endlessly about any dev environment that isn't identical to what they use. Powershell gets shit because it isn't bash/core-utils (even though it's better in just about every conceivable way), Windows API gets shit for not being posix (even though posix is a crappy API), etc.
I work in the M/Mumps space(healthcare), another small (almost invisible) but active community and it seems far from dying. I imagine Delphi is bigger.
I wonder how long the MS stack would last without the support of MS. Would the MS stack fare as well as the Ruby stack has without Microsoft’s massive investment in turning developers into sharecroppers? (Or salesforce, scala, unreal, php, erlang, etc.)
Seems like a wild card entry, which could go any number of directions. :)
Did it ever occur to you that people stick with certain environments because they make a lot of money using them ?
Your statement basically reads as "I can't believe that people/companies have the nerve to stick with a codebase that cost them thousands of dollars to create and has made them very successful over the last couple of decades..."
To be fair, Microsoft need to stop doing stuff that makes people dislike them. Microsoft aggressively court developers who don't use their platforms, but if you are a Microsoft partner or worse, a mere Windows user, you don't always feel so loved.
My main requirement is for a good experience with the pen...
Shame really since the techn isn't bad these days.
Fortunately, there's free third party software that fix a lot of Microsoft's bullshit: https://www.oo-software.com/en/shutup10.
I was stupid when testing W10 and didn't backup W7 so I was left with W10. My solution? Bought MBP's for my whole team, and buying more as we grow. I've been MS since ms-dos and walked thru all the versions since 95 (excluding Vista), but now I'm happy Apple guy. All it took was Win 10. :/ I'm kinda missing Win UI but OMG how much I hated W10...I felt so betreyed :(
I'm sure you will find most people who voice those opinions have their own reasons, based on history, to be distrustful of Microsoft and the way this acquisition will be handled.
Why is that? Why should people forget how evil MS was and still is?
I'm not asking for that, but making wild baseless predictions of how the service will go to shitter or how suddenly all private code will be ripped off and "I'm going to gitlab now, because Microsoft sucks!" is not part of a healthy discussion.
I do have some privacy concerns but they're no less than when Github was not owned by an enterprise software company; If anything I'd be more concerned about privacy if it were Google or Facebook making this acquisition.
The problem is deeper than that though. Unless you were developing an Editor or a Git hosting service, you were not in direct competition with GitHub. Suddenly a lot of startups will find their private code hosted by a direct competitor. I wouldn’t feel comfortable if I was them.
While it's not a complete 1-1 mapping, I keep thinking of Stac Electronics disk compression lawsuit against MS when it comes to handling source code:
To be honest, even with regards to private repos, I can't see Microsoft reading the source code because that would be a massive law case waiting to happen. What I'm more concerned about is Microsoft trying to integrate more of their own suite into Github. I'm also concerned about the future of Atom; which I specifically chose over VSC because it wasn't managed by Microsoft.
Not that because it happens, it is nice; but at-least at this point the source code access concern is more of a conspiracy theory if anything.
All I need do to have concern about this acquisition is look to last year. https://archive.codeplex.com/
How long before they get bored of github then? Codeplex wasn't as good or popular as github, but did seem to have many valid reasons for existence if you were Windows focused. So they killed it.
But they're not baseless predictions, they're based on past information and it tells us it would be prudent to minimize reliance of Github sooner rather than later.
It knows what these things are. If it wants to stop doing them, then I'm happy to use some of its products. Until then, I'm going to gitlab now, because Microsoft sucks!
If the company that ships OS with preinstalled, hidden keyloggers (using that as a pars pro toto) acquires the platform I host my code on, that's not a basis on which to be concerned?
If it's the first, that's not exactly Microsoft's fault, in the same way it's not exactly Mocrosoft's fault that if you buy a Dell it might come with McAfee preinstalled.
Although, it could be argued that if the driver was verified, perhaps they should extend their verified driver program to cover that instead of just crash protection. Then again, since the arguments here are centered around not trusting Microsoft with your source code, I can see why they may not require that...
MGS did right by Bungie/Halo circa XBox; though Halo hadn't yet been released, and it's initial fanbase were all Marathon fans.
Because this isn't slashdot.
However knee jerk responses are today out of line with MSFTs behavior and actual ability.
Simply they are anti-objective and inefficient in discussing current reality.
All large global corporations are constantly involved in legal battles, because that's how conflicts are resolved in our society. Sometimes they win. Sometimes they lose and are convicted. Quite often they settle before they are convicted. That's not the difference between good and evil.
Microsoft took the view that they could bundle IE with Windows and that they could license Windows to PC manufacturers on an exclusive basis. A US court decided that given their market share they were not allowed to do that.
Google is in a similar bundling conflict now with the European Union. So far Google has lost and they may or may not ultimately lose before the European Court of Justice. Or they may settle before it comes to that.
In 2015 Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe were caught trying to keep wages down by agreeing not to poach each others' employees. They paid $415 million to settle that case.
Please look up [Company Name] litigation on Wikipedia and you will find countless cases of large companies being convicted for something or settling this or that case.
Is any of this evil? That is a question everyone has to answer for themselves in each particular case, because "evil" is a moral term. The simple fact of losing a legal battle does not qualify as evil according to my moral compass.
I'm not interested in doing business with any company that has the track record of acquiring and killing as many products as they have. I've personally lost useful tools to them on multiple occasions and I don't use MS software for anything more than I'm forced to on provided hw for my employment.
My one Win10 laptop experience was enough to tell me that MS is still untrustworthy when it comes to forcing behavior on users.
If my work situation ever shifts enough to allow a Linux machine, I'll happily never look back.
Also, not getting convicted isn’t a very high bar.
Just the other day I was helping my mom with some C# code in VS, stepping through lines in the debugger. When I hit some library code I excpected to step into the library code, like in Java. Instead it force stepped over. Wouldn’t even let me see a decompile, like XCode shows you for code without available source. That’s microsoft for you. You get some binary libraries, docs that may or may not be crap, and Steve Balmer screaming “developers developers developers” while you bang your head trying to figure out some poorly documented library works. Microsoft relies on users’ ignorance, Stockholm syndrome, and the perception that Apple is more expensive. You get so much more from Apple, it’s incomparable.
That said this acquisition seems like a great fit and doesn’t trouble me at all. As much as I love it, GitHub is nothing special. Microsoft has little to ruin and a lot to improve. Seems like a solid vanity pickup for MSFT, and a good source of guiding vision for GH.
If you want pure Assembly in binary libraries in C++ and C#, Visual Studio can also display them, one just needs to select the right options.
Indeed it only shows disassembly. I was frustrated that VS wouldn't even show me that. Others write that newer VS lets you enable the showing of assembly.
Anyway, I am spoiled by Java, where I can step into standard library code (which is in Java), can decompile to produce pretty nice Java source where the source is not available, and IntelliJ, which automatically downloads the source where it is publicly available. It's quite wonderful. But I am guessing you already know this, judging from your profile.
To me, not being beholden to documentation is an incredible freedom. The ability to just pop open the source to understand the tool you're working with is indispensable once you've experience that freedom. Microsoft developers don't have this ability, and having had it, it's hard to imagine being without.
ILSpy and Reflector are almost as old as .NET itself.
Visual Studio always had an Assembly view since version 1.0, and there is always WinDbg as alternative, including macro commands to dump .NET JIT information.
Sorry, but it looks like that you haven't properly explored Windows development.
You just look at that shit. Look:
> We’re pleased to reach an agreement and to see continued recognition of the value of our patent portfolio, particularly as it relates to operating systems,
Nothing evil here, move along, lol. Fucking cockroaches. For a multi-billion OS giant you sure are afraid of something 'small' and produced by volunteers that gives users their freedom. What a pathetic display.
That was only 18 months ago at which time MS had harvested a cool $85 million form its Linux patent racket. God knows what the Linux Foundation were smoking when they accepted Microsoft's membership. Suse Linux is another victim of Microsoft's extortion. Worst is the patents remain unspecified, as far as I'm aware.
The Linux Foundation doesn't care about Linux. It's mostly a way for the CEO to get paid big sums, he uses a Mac on stage when talking about Linux. They sponsor a bunch of good projects and pay Linus and Greg, but they're not ideologically commuted to Linux, as long as MS pays the fees, in they go.
And there are many more companies they've sued for using Linux.
We didn't forget that our community was called a cancer (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_...)
We didn't forget that microsoft is one of the biggest pattent troll in the world (http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=... or http://www.asymco.com/2011/05/27/microsoft-has-received-five...).
We didn't forget than they litterally corrupted officials to capture markets (https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandrawrage/2013/03/20/micro... and https://www.tomshardware.fr/articles/pots-de-vin-microsoft,1...)
We didn't forget monopolistic practices (https://www.networkworld.com/article/2221165/microsoft-subne... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...)
We didn't forget the lies (http://practical-tech.com/operating-system/2096/) and sabotage (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009051922175320).
We didn't forget they aided dictators (https://www.salon.com/2011/09/06/wikileaks_microsoft_tunisia) or destroyed products you bought remotly (http://sebsauvage.net/rhaa/?2010/01/06/13/21/41-microsoft-pe...).
We didn't forget they force updated Win10 and all the integrated ads and spywares, after a terrible Win8 while everybody was happy with win 7.
We didn't forget that microsoft killed rare, nokia, skype and that currently outlook is becomming less and less usable everyday.
So yeah, VSCode, Excel, TypeScript, the Xbox and C# are good products. So what ?
Unless you suddently fire everybody from MS, change their raison de vivre, and reboot them, they are still Microsoft.
Attitude like yours is why crooked politicians get reelected. Why big companies can mess up with consummers and get away with it.
People say that you can't change the world. That you can't do anything about what's wrong. They feel helpless.
I'd start with stopping this habit of giving a free pass to all the entities with a disrespectful background just because they got better on some points. Or because they have a better PR.
Because they do. Half of the links I had on them were cleaned off. They are green washing them, cm by cm. Until all that remains is that they were the good guys.
However, it's not forbidden for MS to change their ways and public image. There is no danger anymore of depending too much on MS tech today. And there's the tactical argument of "the enemy of your enemy" if you know what I mean; eg. these days it's all about about your attention and invading your privacy (and MS also has no clean hands here). But still MS is mostly a software company with a predictable pattern, unlike darker forces able to influence public opinion to a degree not seen before, while MS shilling and astroturfing is easily spotted and amateurish by comparison.
The things I'm more concerned about when it comes to GitHub I've already posted in another story:
They could change the terms of service and essentially drive certain types of projects away. They could limit access to older builds and versions to non-paying customers. They could limit access to verified/signed builds. They could reserve certain rights to your software such as they did with npmjs.com. They could run ads, offer IT staff skill matching and promotions, FizzBuzz-like services, or other LinkedIn integrations. They could come up with clever schemes for offering commercial licensing for open source. They could go after the enterprise package mirrors and policy checkers market Artifactory et al are serving. Not saying they'll be doing that (MS isn't stupid), but given MS is selling mainly to enterprises, there are many creative ways they could make money of it.
Overall, however, I'm not too worried. In fact, I think GitHub has become too much of a monopoly (though I have absolutely nothing against them at all), and I'm always for more choice.
I agree on this one. After all, IE is now in great shape because of the competition.
This is disingenuous. He was referring to the licensing model of certain open-source projects, where the introduction of a single line of code coming from an open source project would require the whole of the Windows stack to be open-source, effectively "contaminating" the rest of the stack. To this day this is still a problem to many companies and legal department must carefully review the licensing of the libraries used by their devs.
Espacially since the economical model of microsoft is to lock you in by using softwares and formats that call for getting the entire stack with it, hence infecting your business. But it's ok because they make you pay for it.
And I note that you choose the most important points of all my comment to focus on.
I'm glad some people still defend them. It's good honest people take care of those innocent little guys.
I don't think MS, whose OS infects every PC on store shelves has any place to complain.
Action speaks louder than words. I don't care about Open Soruces or Paid or Free. Bring me better products! Bring me better services. Proof it to me that they care.
They are obviously doing a lot of things right under Nadella. But asking many to not hating them after 4 years of good and 20 to 40 years of bad may be is a little too much to ask for. They will have to do a lot more to wins us back.
Right now the idea of doing things that every other major Relational DB can do, like hook directly to ElasticSearch or feed live data into an outside system is crippled. It’s hard to see that as anything other than a business decision that negatively impacts my codebase.
Skype is absolute junk...takes me 15 mins to get a call working each time.
Microsoft Teams/Planner is junk too.
I understand things are changing, but it still feels like they have weak product managers who don't care about the quality and polish of their products.
Not to mention . . :
Tl;dr, Microsoft ignored his license, attributed nothing, and copied his program directory-by-directory.
Fuck Microsoft. Trust them with email, not your software.
(or any other form of "brand envy" against other companies, for that matter.)
Yeah, sure. I'm totally on that but this isn't a thread about Apple, is it?
But finally we have a new culture in software. Where big tech give away crazy amounts of IP. Google gave away Map/Reduce and K8s and TF and so many papers. FB has given away so much also.
We finally had a single and neutral site which everyone uses.
So things were just fantastic and then the old guard just can't resist and messes it up. Now the big tech companies will have to move to a new site and a single place is no more.
Looks like they will move to GitLab which will just become the new GitHub and ironically way down the road MS will probably have to move their code to GitLab if it becomes the new place.
There are many, many developers, most developers?, that do not use any MS developement technology. Now without them wanting it MS has injected themselves and will cause a hassle. Either moving your repo to GitLab or now having to go to multiple places to find things. Or confusion if the repo is on Github or Gitlab. It is not a huge hassle but a hassle that was not necessary.
That is the thing. The new leaders in the tech world are all about moving the ENTIRE industry forward. But MS move here has slowed the industry as people have new work to deal with it.
BTW, do hope we can put to rest that MS has changed. Clearly they have not. I never really thought it as company cultures rarely change. But here is the nice black and white proof.
Disclaimer: I am one of the core maintainers of Draft.
I’m commenting on the tech stack discussion, given my experience in the company and if GitHub joins, I’m 99.99% sure they will stay on the tech stack that they have today. Look at LinkedIn, it is still running on Scala.
In NO way am I a Microsoft fan boy. I've been windows free going on a decade. I run Linux Mint and OSX as my primary desktop environments. Apple is burning me hard, the way the computing world is going to change in the next couple years, cluster technology is going to be at it's core and we are going to see some very different things grow out of it. I'm as shocked as anyone to see MS play nice with linux and especially contribute how they have to Kubernetes; which I think is the largest open source project in the world right now?
What if MS dumped resources into world class CI tools to go with Github? What if they made a Github open source module and would let you federate your content? I could see this being a really interesting thing. They could also screw us all, but under their current management I think they are getting ready to be competitive in an emergent environment that can't exist without open source.
Wow, that's optimistic! I'd be happy if they just keep it neutral.
Fact is all the big vendors publish and collaborate on github, this purchase threatens that ecosystem. And we are more likely to see a message of private code hosting sites, than a solid federation system for source control.
I think at this exact moment, there is a really interesting space that can be filled by a FOSS Github alternative. I think a new player might be better equipped to offer it. Maybe someone can build something off of Keybase's git services.
I am sad to see an independent voice go, but I don't think Github has been able to stay competitive and IMO this could be a good thing. That remains to be seen, but regardless of Gitlab's ability or what MS might do, I think there is a vacuum left that I'm hoping we can fill as a community and I'll put my effort and dollar behind whatever shows up to do it.
Someone should ask Linus what he thinks about git federation. Maybe he can save us from ourselves again.
Draft (which started with Deis and is continuing with Azure) continues to get active development:
Their page makes it clear that I should know, but doesn't give me an obvious place to click to get a clue.
Found some markety things here.
What is CNCF?
CNCF is an open source software foundation dedicated to making cloud native computing universal and sustainable. Cloud native computing uses an open source software stack to deploy applications as microservices, packaging each part into its own container, and dynamically orchestrating those containers to optimize resource utilization. Cloud native technologies enable software developers to build great products faster.
This deck looks very interesting, I don't mean to hijack this thread and make it an AMA, but I do have some questions for you.
- What does it mean to host my project with CNCF?
- Why was CNCF created?
- What do you consider the core services that CNCF offers?
- I have colleagues who work in the automotive industry, I know cluster technology and IoT are huge for them right now but also it's a strange place to operate. Since they have a small community compared to normal web services, what sort of value prop are you providing to them?
- Why should I look at CNCF for resources relating to my companies cloud services?
- Your company/product really does not appear to be geared towards developers, which I would think would be essential, can you show me a developer portal that tells me why I should depend on you for the information you appear to be aggregating?
In the automotive industry, I would recommend our sister organization, Automotive Grade Linux.
I personally will be avoiding your organization like the plague.
Years later the back end was still on FreeBSD and Solaris, but the front end was on Win 2000 using Windows Services for UNIX.
And for that matter, GitLab as well :-)
I do know the power of analytics and control over prominent backend systems, and the allure of being "gatekeeper" with the power to extract value from integrations.
you don't know anyone using vs code?
in all the circles I know, it's the new de-facto goto for text editing heavier than notepad.
Vim, Sublime, Atom, Eclipse-based IDE...
Not once have I met anyone using VS code on any platform.
I don’t think that’s the case anymore.
But then again “the SV hipster development ecosystem”. Who is that exactly?
That was a reference made by user tomato.
But if you prefer my point of view, those that fill up SV coffees or live in other parts of the globe trying to replicate the SV culture and are naive to the point to give Apple and Google human attributes, while believing they are any different from a profit oriented corporation.
MS now ships Debian for Azure through a collaboration with Debian and credativ, and also in the Windows Store running through the Windows Subsystem for Linux. They've hosted a Debian cloud sprint, sponsored DebConf, and engaged in good-faith substantive ways that don't only benefit their platforms. Of course, they care most about their platforms, but that's fine.
In the other direction, Debian does ship fully open source software (what Debian would call DFSG-free) with Microsoft as author.
Debian isn't playing favorites, of course, and is similarly working with Amazon and Google (among other partners of all sizes) in areas of shared interest.
I agree it's important to be able to Debian in the environment of your choice. That includes Azure as well as self-hosted and small-hosting-company options.
The default state for people needs to be DISTRUST of corporations (and governments) that they do not have a direct financial relationship with (when you aren't giving them cash).
I don't think that much of this holds water but it exists and the picture isn't one of "were standing up to defend your privacy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_concerns_regarding_Goo...
Microsoft is moving fast along the same path.
> MS do not tie an analytics product (on most sites around the world) into the world's largest personal-data-mining and advertising network.
They're trying pretty damn hard with Windows 10, which by default collects pretty much every keystroke you make. That data in turn gets shared and sold to advertisers - see MS's own privacy page: https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/privacystatement
MS do not tie an analytics product (on most sites around the world) into the world's largest personal-data-mining and advertising network.
The only answer is to simply gather less data, or be more explicit about when you do. And Google isn't great at either.
Relatedly, Maps shows me when a location is likely to be popular vs unpopular. I have to assume that's based on the location history of everyone using Maps - seeing how long they spend in a place and at what time. But what percentage of Maps users are aware their information is being used in this way? I doubt the number is high.
Also, now I come to think of it, Google search itself. It shows different results sometimes when I'm logged in vs logged out, but it's not clear why. And I don't recall ever being asked if I wanted, say, my browsing history to influence future search results. It just does. Somehow.
It sounds like you want something different than transparency about when information is collected, but instead you want transparency about what information is used to give you a specific feature.
For example, you opted into location history a long time ago (likely), should Google again ask for your permission every time they add a new feature that takes advantage of your location history information? (assuming said features don't affect the privacy of your data)
That seems like a very strange onus.
Not OP, but - sure, why not? It would be really nice to have that. Especially if it wasn't the meaningless kind of transparency, "we use your location data as well as past interests to provide this feature", but something concrete - "we use regular GPS/cellular/wifi location updates to determine places where you've stayed for longer and correlate that with your recent searches in Google, as well as visits to venue sites that use Google Analytics".
(Personally, I'd be fine with such concrete announcements popping up the first time you use the app after a new feature was added, and if a feature is something one might want to not use, I'd be happy with it being opt-out. Just don't surprise people with application suddenly doing new things by itself, without much prior warning.)
Because if we lived in that reality, you'd end up complaining about how Google was sending you unwanted marketing emails about new features multiple times per week, and I'd be arguing that they were emails discussing new privacy updates.
Not to say that no one would want that, but as someone who does, by way of working at Google, more or less get emails similar to the technical descriptions of newly released features you want, very few of them are relevant to me.
Maybe they'd combat the perception I have of Google - that they just do UI redesign every couple of months, which more often than not lose useful features than add anything of value.
You say you get lots of those e-mails internally; I'd love to know where Google is actually adding all those features - because it definitely doesn't seem to be Inbox, or GMail, or Google Maps.
Weird, I'm pretty sure with my new Android phone, upon booting it up for the first time, I had to opt in to location services and a little popup explained exactly what it was doing.
This is based on the location history of everyone using Android. Its the Google Location Services requests going back and forth all the time that tells them where people go.
Respect for privacy is a continuum and Google isn't on either extreme. I'd even go so far as to say that different parts of Google have different stances on privacy. People who try to make them into a monolith with a single binary stance on the issue are lacking nuance.
"Old" schoolers have and will likely have for ever that evil 90s vision of MS. However it is changing a bit in that people too. They still may be evil, but at least the look more modern (opensource, new technology, using/contributing to Linux etc).
However the important thing (for MS) here is new people. If you come into the scene now or in a few years you only get to know the "new" masked MS image. Yes, they are still doing dubious stuff but is all under the hoods, buried by layers of hype, cloud, linux and fireworks.
Rebranding some big stablished company with that kind of history is something that takes a long long time.
I won't stick around to find out, my time is too valuable and the competition is strong. For me, Github doesn't really have any distinctive features except that is was the biggest, and so most convenient. I suspect most people and organizations will be in the same situation.
I suspect the vast majority of people won't be bothered to move their stuff unless MS pulls a Skype.
If they bundle the pro version of github with office 365 - just like with Teams, the 365 bundle becomes even more compelling for organizations.
What is that? I think its ownership of the huge amount of computer programs (and not to mention the associated metadata of authors and their professional network). The editor and the client provide a continuous stream of samples ready to be drawn from the world.
I believe its in the owners best interest to keep this golden goose of continuously increasing source of computer programs in good health.
The thing that I didn’t understand at first was why did MS gave up codehub (Google had Code, FB never pushed phabricator that hard) only to acquire GitHub later?
There's an increased chance of Microsoft starting to behave like they own Git, and trying to make it a part of their "platform" with proprietary extensions like their Git filesystem hack.
But they aren't the only 800 pound gorilla in the room - open source, google, apple, amazon have all taken a big chunk out of what MS was.
What prevents MS (or any one who acquires GitHub) from pulling a sourceforge? Well nothing prevents them, and I can't name someone who wouldn't want to monetize it -- that latter fact is going to be what kills the product/project.
and more recently there've been articles on their revenues hitting 100m. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/11/github-has-a-110-million-run...
but it sounds like their costs have outgrown their earnings.
I stand corrected.
But I also don't have a lot of confidence in them doing well by the community either... it could be as "harmless" as a move to "Microsoft logins" that kills it off.
You know wikipedia exists. Or people like me who will harp on on how privacy standards that are somehow acceptable now would be something inconceivable in 90's.
Also, in many years my amount of downtime due to Debian's unattended-upgrades is exactly 0. The same cannot be said of Windows updates.
I'm still hoping Microsoft see the light on all the telemetry and forced update nonsense before the Windows 7 cut-off in a couple of years. The trouble is, I can't see it happening as long as Nadella is at the top, and I can't see that changing as long as the big enterprise customers who aren't subject to that kind of nonsense are propping up the share price.
A few years ago I turned on my windows machine to see the dreaded upgrade. Being in a rush I went to another machine and the exact thing happened. I blew my top and replaced all windows with Ubuntu. I would have preferred Macs but I couldn't afford the Apple tax (high prices and not working on my existing HW).
That's nice for you, but if you use any non-open software or software not covered by the package repo then there's a fairly good chance you'll see downtime after an upgrade of your linux distro.
To be clear, I was talking specifically about the unattended-upgrades package, which is primarily for automatic installation of things like security fixes. In my experience, this has been rock solid: it's never broken a distro package, nor any dependency that non-distro software we had installed was relying on.
Windows 10 is almost usable with a keyboard and mouse. It’s much better than 8 was.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you get default out of the box with Windows as well?
Your OS can be configured to pull updates not only from official Canonical sources or those blessed by them but also any sources you please including your own. You can put up your own packages and use them just for you or promote them to all of planet earth. If you don't like a particular package or a particular version you can not update just that package although you might be unable to update others if they require the new package in question.
If you feel strongly about it you can fork and support old versions indefinately or take the package in your own direction.
Further you can even fork the entire ecosystem and not even call it Ubuntu anymore.
On Windows home you can't even decide not to update. You have to pay $99 per computer for that privilege and might have to pay again if you update say the motherboard. The windows store is only for apps that MS designates at its privilege and supposing you agree to give MS almost 1/3 of your revenue for a privilege it can revoke at its descretion at any time.
You can't fork Edge if you don't like how it works and if you could you wouldn't have the right to distribute such let alone create an alternative store/source usable by all for people to install/update such a creation.
You have pretty much misunderstood the entire point of open source software.
What? That's a stretch of a comment from saying both the Ubuntu and Windows behaviour of updates is the same out of the box.
can't with Windows 10
I understand the need for security, but updates shouldn't break my computer either.
This is my opinion, but I think Microsoft tech is fairly terrible for open source and smaller projects, because .Net is a lot of complicated tooling you’ll never use outside of enterprise. At the same time they are rapidly becoming the “only” enterprise option rather quickly, and with that comes the question of why you’d chose AWS over Azure.
Sure visual studio has a free version, Windows now does Linux and .net Core is open but I see those moves as a way to make c# replace JAVA in schools not as a way to make open source love Microsoft.
From what I saw as an intern at Microsoft a while back, there's way more of an engineering-led culture at Microsoft than people give it credit for, and to the extent there's a push to promote their own language and tooling, it's largely driven by a wholehearted belief (and challenge) that Microsoft tools are the right ones for the job, with initiatives being chosen to fulfill and expand that promise. And, more recently, what I hear is that Nadella's initiatives are genuinely promoting that ethos across the entire leadership structure. In that context, they make a lot of sense as a partner for Github.
I can tell you from experience that that will never, ever happen.
The most likely outcome is that GitHub will slowly but surely start to bleed open source projects to alternatives like GitLab. And GitHub will continue to live on, like LinkedIn and Skype before it, but it will lose mind share and will no longer be the epicenter of open source development.
Remember SourceForge? Yeah, that's right.
Not sure what you mean here.
They've never specifically targeted non-Apple developers as a core constituency. It was mainly due to the fact that OSX was UNIX derived that the platform became popular at all.
Interix/SFU/SUA has always existed. WSL is just the latest iteration of it. And nobody uses it now just like nobody used it before
It's fixed now. Thanks for responding so politely.
(disclaimer: am an embedded systems engineer and a Rust fanboy)
> also windows is not even close to comparable to macos except that they’re both OSes
This sounds like opinions ;)
Times are different, mobile is more important, cloud hosting is a real thing and technology changes. They had to evolve or die. Saying you can't trust MS in 2018 based on the way the world was years ago is like saying that Netflix could only ship DVDs to people's houses, Amazon can't be trusted to do cloud hosting because they only sell books, and that a minor niche computer maker should never be trusted to sell phones.
“I can’t hurt you now, I have these handcuffs on” doesn’t mean you can full trust someone who hit you.
(All that aside, I have notice what does appear to be real cultural change at MS)
Exactly. Unless all the leaders who flourished under the "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" regime have been fired, that attitude is still in their blood. And especially with leadership roles, I doubt that those people didn't manage to adapt and stay employed, because those are exactly the type who can adapt to appear to play nice. Whether in sheep's clothing or any other animal, I'm sure there are plenty of wolves still at MicroSoft.
TBC, I am not MicroSoft is evil, or that everyone working there is. They do world-class CompSci research, and I am a very happy Visual Studio, VSC and TypeScript user. But it's a company with thousands of people, and I doubt that they have completely reformed.
If there's one thing which is predictable about corporate behavior, it is that they will act in their own best interest. Publicly traded companies are legally required to do so.
Also equating trust with product offerings is a false equivalency here: saying Amazon can't be trusted as a hosting provider because they were known as an online retailer is a lot different than saying Microsoft cannot be trusted because they have a long track-record of anti-consumer and anti-developer behavior.
My dream scenario is the former, where Microsoft provide leadership to a company that's still reeling from its own scandals, and use GitHub as a platform for promoting open-source, rather than as a way of mining their access to the open-source world to benefit their own tooling.
It's along the same lines as saying an oil executive would make a good candidate as the EPA chief because they "understand pollution".
On the other hand, most Linux devs do not want to ever take anyone to court for copyleft violations. While I agree that it's very reasonable to almost never take anyone to court for a copyleft violation, it still needs to be a weapon of last resort.
If you're concerned, I'd recommend basing your software on POSIX and make it also run on the BSDs, rather than just Linux, and in particular avoiding Linuxisms such as Docker and Systemd which you'll find are poorly designed anyway.
Hmmm... Windows Subsystem for Linux... the 1998 Microsoft-vs-Linux report... hmmmm.
While I'm currently picturing a pacman trying to eat a dot a bit bigger than it expected, I do wonder what kind of hilarity Microsoft have planned for, presumably, 5-10 years from now (I'd presume they're in the Embrace/Extend period if my conspiracy theory is right).
[Small edit: currently at -1; interesting | Edit 2: Now at -4! Anybody care to actually comment? I'm interested in why people disagree!]
1. It adds little to nothing to the discussion. You raise two items with no commentary but "hmmmm", then offer a metaphor and an admitted conspiracy theory - neither of which you explain in depth nor draw interesting conclusions from.
2. There is inherent ridiculousness (almost to the point of trolling) in connecting a 20-year old report (1998) to a modern initiative, particularly considering the massive industry, technical, and organizational changes between those two events. Implying that one leads to another as part of a 30-year strategy to consume/extinguish Linux assumes a level of long-term planning and, frankly, managerial competency that is almost unheard of in today's public companies.
3. Assuming I can even understand your poorly constructed point, I still disagree with it (see #1 and #2) and, more importantly, think you fundamentally misunderstand the landscape in which Microsoft now competes. In a world increasingly accessed by mobile devices, MS has no mobile presence. In an OS landscape increasingly disintermediated by the browser, MS has little significant browser presence. They have oriented their entire organization around Azure (its biggest revenue growth area) and cross-platform applications deliverable in the browser and on 3rd party mobile OSes. They reorganized and, for the first time, no longer have a Windows division. Thinking they're in the middle of some Machiavellian scheme to take back an increasingly irrelevant OS dominance position by extinguishing Linux (and failing because Linux is too big?) completely misses the point that Linux's size wasn't the cause of Microsoft's inability to extinguish it, it was these other countervailing industry forces. And to imply that they've somehow failed also ignores the fact that MSFT's market capitalization has had a nearly identical growth to GOOG and AAPL over the past two years while they've made this transition.
As they say on Food Network, for those reasons we had to chop you.
2: The reason I connected current activity with long-ago activity was based on sentiments I read that Microsoft were still behaving in some of the ways they used to. But a 20 year stretch is kind of pushing it, particularly in the tech industry.
1: Fair point.
Thanks for the feedback.
That is totally uncalled for.
But either way I don't get why that usage has triggered you. It's not like he's advocating for someone's death; he is clearly conveying his view about Ballmer's desire to influence Microsoft and the degree of conviction he believes Ballmer has in this regard.
Perhaps if English is not your first language, this word usage might seem strange or unpleasant. I assure you it's not.
Another example: https://www.pagetable.com/?p=27
This is just what is public.
Maybe not now, but what about after the next reorganization or the next CEO? If it's no longer in MS' interests to keep a relationship with this audience somewhere down the road, why would they leave them alone?
This is the uncertainty people are afraid of.
It’s like if Google bought Mozilla and Firefox became just another Google browser.
Microsoft rescued them.
- It allows them to peek into any private repo on GH right from their own office. All major players host code there, likely a lot of them in private repos too. Microsoft has a large trackrecord of 'me too' products (i.e. the ones released after the original from another company is successful) and corporate espionage isn't something that's just happening in the movies. This too could make things very profitable
- Developer relations across private repos could increase the value of linkedin profiles which in turn could make that more valuable.
But that's about what I could come up with. I seriously don't understand why one would spent $2B on github if it hosts your OSS stuff. Also, to make sure VSTS become more successful with an integration doesn't make sense to me: GH isn't the most profitable service out there and was losing money. Hell it might even go belly up sooner or later and VSTS would look to be a better alternative.
Allows logically, not legally though I'd expect.
I imagine, in my paranoia, the first thing MS will do is change the T&Cs.
That sounds incredibly unlikely if not borderline ridiculous.
Microsoft wants people to develop for Windows, because with no apps you have Windows Phone. If what you want to use runs on Windows, Windows is what you purchase (or in a few years probably subscribe to along with Office 365 and OneDrive). A lot of that subscription model already exists on the Enterprise side of Windows, and I don't think anyone would be surprised to see it expand - "Windows as a Service" has been a topic of discussion for years now.
'Extinguish' might be right, but Amazon is the target here and holding off Google in second place. Other cloud providers will have to race to the bottom if they are not already there.
How did they become unprofitable? Their expenses are servers and people. It seems that there are an enormous number of companies paying for private repos and that should more than cover their costs.
I'm guessing it was from corporate mismanagement, overbalooned salaries for initial employees, and probably hiring too quickly to meet demand.
They want to be a player in that game, so they’ll transition off they are old product which isn’t that popular onto a new one they purchased that has all the mind share.
As long as they don’t screw it up, and recent Microsoft seems to me like a company that won’t, it will benefit them. And perhaps it will benefit the user some to do have a company with deep pockets behind it.
Makes sense they try to control the future of the tool they use in so meny projects.
> Torvalds turned over maintenance on 26 July 2005 to Junio Hamano, a major contributor to the project. Hamano was responsible for the 1.0 release on 21 December 2005, and remains the project's maintainer.
I'm guessing Torvalds still has a lot of control if push came to shove, so we can assume git is executively controlled by Torvalds and Hamano.
I think git and decentralized source control are great, but I get a little suspicious of people saying tooling is "not fun" simply because it isn't their favorite or most familiar.
I like it, and really love that they added web interface (review, overall view of changes, etc.).
P4 is very easy to get started, all you need is to learn several things, and tools underneath can easily be changed, learned to do this for you. Then it's easy to comprehend changes, since all CL's are monotonically increasing, so once gets perception when a CL is announced whether it affects him, or her, etc.
And the elephant in the room is the really, really huge files: psd, tiff, max, maya (ma/mb) models, fbx, zip, iso, exe installs, etc.
There are some peculiarities, like text files handling and conversion (e.g. \r\n <-> \n).
Then some useful (but controversial) features: locking (per extension), or manually per file.
Having all your projects from different teams in one place, but each team/project can customize a view to its own work (a bit opposite of what google is doing with their mono-repo, but unlike g4 there ain't option to sync only what you want, and have the rest off the network).
With an acquisition, most of this becomes amplified, based on how Microsoft treat GitHub. IMO, leaving them alone to do their own thing could be just as bad as being too controlling. I'd like to see someone like Scott Hanselman, a well-liked developer in the development community be given the opportunity to sit in GitHub and to use Microsoft's resources to improve the open-source community.
- RhodeCode is based on newer and more modern than turgobears2 framework, called Pyramid.
- RhodeCode had 20 releases since 2017, Kallithea had two.
- RhodeCode fixed many security issues that Kallithea didn't, not to mention dozen of features that RhodeCode has but Kallithea doesn't, e.g pull requests updates, integrations framework
How is that a better activity and release?