"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.
Microsoft isn't acquiring Github out of the goodness of it's heart, they want something of value from it. What is that, and is it compatible with what made Github useful?
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.
> Microsoft isn't acquiring Github out of the goodness of it's heart, they want something of value from it. What is that, and is it compatible with what made Github useful?
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?
Is that really the case, obtaining to own code? Depending on the Terms of Use, did GitHub receive a special, separate license that allows them to make use of code under separate permissions of what's otherwise libre-freely licensed or proprietary/closed/private? If so, wouldn't the acquisition allow to exit existing contracts? Sure, the metadata is exclusively on GitHub and moving will result in a loss of stars, followers, contacts, etc.
Companies that use github, both as teams on the main website and with the enterprise version, pay 9 dollars per month per user. If Microsoft can get it's enterprise customers to trust the product enough to pay that sort of a price this will be a very profitable acquisition for Microsoft. If anything, I don't think github would've ever been able to acquire enterprise customers had microsoft not made this acquisition.
Not at all, they are supporting the model of TFS corporate deployments and generic (but embraced and extended) Git clients.
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.
As one of those "old schoolers" I don't view MS as any less evil than they used to be.
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.
This is a furphy. GitHub is already monetized -- it is highly profitable, selling fee-paying plans to corporations. MS's major customer is corporations. Of course they're not going to do a SourceForge because this is a traditional acquisition where the purchaser has recognised that GitHub's current monetization ties in well with their existing business model, and they gain value in the acquisition from it building their reputation with business as the go-to place for corporate cloud. They have no interest in damaging the corporate value they gain by fiddling with the consumer and open source side.
Sources for highly profitable ? According to the linked article they were not and lost >60M in 2016. They could probably still optimise to make a profit, but seems like they were struggling a bit with making money.
I think I should have said sourceforge/skype - I don't think MS is going to detonate GitHub the same way sourceforge went.
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.
"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.