Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This was largely my thought behind the move.

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.

I work for Microsoft, we run systems that are not built on MS technologies. There’s absolutely no push for migration. In my opinion, no-one will pressure GitHub to change their stack, it would be a suicide.

Disclaimer: this is just my personal opinion.

Aside from Wunderlist, who was acquired and running on AWS, and had to switch to Azure and rewrite a bunch of their code to become ToDo.

There is a large difference in complexity here though, and Wunderlist need extra coding for O365 integration so it wasn't just redevelopment purely for a platform shift.

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.

> VS.code being based on Electron

(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!

The scale of products you're talking about are vastly different.

Meanwhile, I'd really like for people to stop hating Microsoft just because "Microsoft".

> 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.

Then EVERY single other business of its size has a strategy that looks like "Embrace". The only difference is that Microsoft had a memo leak.

... which is exactly the problem. The issue is the tactic, not the company employing it. It’s just this company has a serious habit of employing those tactics, hence the distrust.

I'd like anyone in any business contemplating an Embrace, Extinguish strategy to know that it ends in people not trusting your company and being unwilling to work with your services.

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.

Hmm... I would think that it will cost Microsoft a rethinking of their business strategy.

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.

I really don't think reputational damage in this case came from adopting an embrace-and-extend strategy as such, but rather the monopolistic position they were in combined with specific tactics they used.

That might be the reason why many people dislike all businesses of Microsoft's size. I for one wouldn't be happy if Google or Amazon or Apple bought Github either.

I completely agree. The biggest issue here is that we are losing a neutral player as the top comment says. The tech world is that much more monopolistic without an independent GitHub.

The Memo leak was just the tip of the iceberg. MS also lost multiple court cases about their anticompetitive behaviour (for example gov of US, Sun) in that era.

Did you forget the Extend, Extinguish parts of the strategy, or are you just paraphrasing EEE to make it sound somewhat ok?

Pretty sure he means that just seeing symptoms of Embrace is not enough to sound the alarm that it's going to be extended and extinguished.

After all, what's the point of building software, if it's never embraced, aka, used?

The typical implication of "Embrace" in these EEE uses is not 'figure out how to work in tandem with' but more 'how can we the amoeba surround and prepare to Extinguish this'.

Hence the justified caution and monitoring of a known extinguisher.

> But let's not forget all of the moves toward a friendlier Microsoft/Linux world looks suspiciously like "Embrace"

“Embrace” is happening everywhere these days. Don’t sound the alarm until you see Extend.

Wsl is getting scarily close to Linux performance in benchmarks and improving fast. I don't see extend being too far away...

WSL has horrible horrible IO performance. It's really not going anywhere until they fix it, and the fix won't be easy

But they don't really need to fix it. Sure, it'd be nice, but they're targeting developer machines and utilities with WSL, not a server replacement of Linux. Nobody would buy a Windows license just to serve from LAMP stacks on WSL over Azure or something. Speed requirements for dev machines are a little less stringent, and as long as they are hitting better-than-Docker numbers, they will still be providing value.

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...

It runs on Windows and can interop with Windows applications, that's already an extension by itself.

I am sure no one in the company has changed since that memo leaked in 1996...

Developers that exclusively use MS stack are very similar to those exclusive to Delphi. MS and Delphi stacks are very specific in nature and very different from everything else out there. Developers stepping out of those feel very uncomfortable and unfamiliar, thus wanting to stay in. Even though the Delphi stack is very obviously dying, the resistance is great, and many people stay on the sinking ship. MS stack is live and well which gives a viable incentive to never even look over the fence. That is the problem with developers exclusive in MS stack, they are not flexible and they don't want to be. They want everything to be done "the MS way". Where does that put GH? How will it change, in what direction (to accommodate the MS stack)?

> That is the problem with developers exclusive in MS stack, they are not flexible and they don't want to be. They want everything to be done "the MS way".

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.

Delphi might be a small community compared to JVM or MS. Is Delphi dying?

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.)

Personally, I wonder how ReactOS (www.reactos.org) will affect things when it finally gets to the point of being usable for general population end users.

Seems like a wild card entry, which could go any number of directions. :)

How does this personally affect you such that you consider it your duty to disparage whole groups of developers for the choices that they make ?

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..."

> Meanwhile, I'd really like for people to stop hating Microsoft just because "Microsoft".

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.

Case in point: ads in Windows 10.

Mod parent up. I bought a Surface Pro thinking I should give Windows 10 Pro a chance with WSL on it. Even the “Pro” version comes with bubble gum jam games on it, ads, spyware / telemetry and the like. No way of removing it. I wiped Windows 10 after a week and installed Ubuntu.

Off topic, but how is the experience with Ubuntu on the surface. I love the hardware and the pen of the surface pro, but Xubuntu has been my daily driver for a few years now, and I can't imagine going back to Windows.

My main requirement is for a good experience with the pen...

Pretty bad. I tried using Ubuntu on my Surface Laptop and gave up pretty much immediately. The problem is a lack of drivers. I couldn't get the keyboard working and the device would never "sleep", so I didn't even try seeing if a pen would work. The touchscreen was functional.

Not even a viable option.

Shame really since the techn isn't bad these days.

Are these only available in Home edition? I'm in pro edition and have ever seen any ads. I also use ClassicShell start menu so maybe that's why I never see it...

Ads are definitely present in Pro. Perhaps you're just not calling them ads. In the start menu you get "recommended apps", explorer pops up "recommendations" for OneDrive, and when you switch your default browser to Chrome it nags you that you should really give Edge a chance, to name a few things people are referring to when they talk about Windows 10 having ads.

Fortunately, there's free third party software that fix a lot of Microsoft's bullshit: https://www.oo-software.com/en/shutup10.

Or you delete Cortana and completely break all of that bullshit. Though it has made it so a Windows 10 update will no longer apply, which is a frustrating side effect but one I am willing to live with.

They're present even in Enterprise versions. The worst part? Every time you upgrade you get all the garbage back: games, ads, etc.

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 :(

People hate Microsoft for "being Microsoft" BECAUSE of what Microsoft is, does and has done.

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.

> Meanwhile, I'd really like for people to stop hating Microsoft just because "Microsoft"

Why is that? Why should people forget how evil MS was and still is?

> 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.

People base their expectations on past performance. And for MS it hasn’t been stellar. But there is no need for speculation; we will wait and see.

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.

Exactly. GitHub Enterprise under MS rule would be an epic conflict of interest for many customers who currently use it because MS could/would compete with 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:


Which makes see the wisdom of Gnome choosing Gitlab.

Gnome is open source though so Microsoft wouldn't need to buy the hosting provider to read it's source.

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.

If you have issues with that, then only self-hosting can save you.

I already self-host personal projects but that is only part of the story since I cannot (and should not) dictate what solutions other people use. A pretty significant proportion of open source projects I have contributed to have been Github hosted so even if I don't use it for personal projects I still will need to use it if I want to continue to contribute to those other projects.

The same people also host their deployment with some of these corporations, who doesn't use either of AWS, GCP or Azure? Do you also have the same concern that a direct competitor possibly has access to your deployed code, API keys and is also in direct control of your production environment?

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.

Yes, major corporations have moved off of AWS for precisely this reason. (edit to clarify: They moved out of concern about a competitor hosting & having too much knowledge about their business.)

I'm not personally concerned but some big companies definitely are https://www.retaildive.com/news/report-target-opts-out-of-am...

OK I'll avoid iterating the ludicrously long list of Microsoft acquisitions that immediately did go to shit. Often intentionally, like AutoRoute straight after purchase from Nextbase.

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.

Codeplex died because GitHub won. There was little point in keeping Codeplex around especially after MS decided to move their open source stuff to where the developers were, i.e. GitHub.

> 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.

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.

I'm not really interested in being part of a "healthy discussion" with Microsoft. There are enough people telling Microsoft about all the things it is doing to make people dislike it.

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!

> baseless

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?

Are you referring to the issue where the crappily written driver had a keylogger to detect keyboard volume keys, etc, or something else?

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...

No, I am talking about a literal keylogger actively installed on the OS. To their credit, after it surfaced they now provide a privacy option to "turn it off", but they still pretty much admit to spy on you every chance they get.


Do you have examples of Microsoft acquiring technology that was beloved and embraced by it's community and making it better?

MGS did right by Bungie/Halo circa XBox; though Halo hadn't yet been released, and it's initial fanbase were all Marathon fans.

Xamarin, Minecraft. They are as capable of the best as of the worst.

Minecraft was going in the toilet slowly far before Microsoft acquired them, but the changes they made have not been for the better in my opinion. Xamarin was plainly bad before acquisition, and as far as I've been able to discern this hasn't changed.

it's still bad.

After what they did to Skype, such predictions are hardly baseless.

Evil are the companies that pollute rivers, sponsor wars, have work conditions on borderline slavery, agree to work with dictatorship governments....

No. Software developers, doctors, post delivery personell, whatever, is supposed to do the best in their own field, and just because there are other sectors which are considerably worse doesn't mean that we should let ours ever fall to that level too. It's not difficult to see a dystopiant future in which software might help create the most horrible of all societies, and its reach could also be global.

> Why is that?

Because this isn't slashdot.

The call is not to forget - I didn’t see that from the comment.

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.

Don't forget how evil Github is!

I agree... GH is evil

Because Microsoft was never that evil and they aren't evil today. It took me seeing the stuff Apple got away with the iPhone to see what a non-issue Microsoft 90s desktop hegemony was. The fear was overblown.

They were convicted of anti-competitive behavior, and that was after at least a decade of unprovable rumors and industry open-secret of anti-competitive behavior. How much more clear-cut of a case do you need?

Evil is not a legal term though.

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.

Unsavory and untrustworthy then, if the E word is too strong.

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.

More than 20 years ago; The entire leadership has changed since.

Also, not getting convicted isn’t a very high bar.

But the users from 20 years ago aren't dead yet. It's difficult to get a widespread bad reputation in business, but once it's obtained, it needs an incredible amount of repairing and good-doing to get rid of it again, and it's not that Microsoft is doing any of it with their recent pseudo-openness approach, they just realized that OS lock-in doesn't work any more and that they have to massively invest in cloud data/services lock-in and the race for AI, by giving their OS/VS away gratis, to prevent a world of Java and web developers and Apple after loosing the entire mobile sector. Looks like people will fall for that lock-in/dependency again because they don't understand digital, and Microsoft can buy their way out of their previously miserable situation. Wonder who paid for that, probably all the companies with Microsoft licenses because of lock-in and market dominance.

Telemetry and ads in an OS you paid for, which supposedly targets the “Pro” market. That’s not evil?

Not being the worst of the bunch doesn't mean you're good.

I wasted many years using Windows, an OS that I gained nothing from using except memorizing UI patterns. This may be great for some, but I really developed as a computer person when I got OS X, which allowed me to use Unix without diving into Linux. The impact was huge. I still think sadly about the wasted years clicking around Windows.

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.

That is all down to your config. If you go to "Tools \ options" , then in that dialog, expand the "Debugging" node and select "General", you can "Enable .Net Framework source stepping", and you can also tweak the way the debugger handles external code with "Enable just my code" and "step over properties and operators". There's loads more - by default it is really paired down.

I really would love to see how XCode is able to display anything for binary Objective-C libraries, beyond pure Assembly.

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.

> I really would love to see how XCode is able to display anything for binary Objective-C libraries, beyond pure Assembly.

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.

You can see .NET bytecode since version .NET was in beta with ildasm, distributed with .NET SDK tooling.

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.

Oh I definitely make no claim to having explored Windows development.

Only plus point you made for XCode was de compiled sources which is already available in vs. I think people like to rant about ms stuff.

Visual Studio 2017 15.6 shipped a new feature called "Navigate to Decompiled Sources" in March.

Read-up on MS's ongoing Linux patent racket and you might change your tune.

I don't see how it relates to Github but sure, link me to someplace I can read up on it because a Google search of "Microsoft Linux patent racket" only led me to an obvious troll bait blog.

Can't reply to the child comment so replying here:

> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/20/signs_deal_with_cas...

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.

I don't want to sound dismissive but you've linked to a blog post from 2016, which in its entirety only mentions how much they make from the entire patent portfolio and a wild guess on how much they could be making from "Linux patent racket" and no other details on who they're pursuing or what the demands are/were.

> God knows what the Linux Foundation were smoking when they accepted Microsoft's membership

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.

Microsoft milks Casio for using Linux: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/20/signs_deal_with_cas...

And there are many more companies they've sued for using Linux.

Well, you may love to forget, but a lot of us don't.

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.

Upvoted you for going through the effort to put these points so eloquently together :)

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.

> And there's the tactical argument of "the enemy of your enemy

I agree on this one. After all, IE is now in great shape because of the competition.

IE is abandoned, isn't it? Keep in mind that Microsoft bought Andreessens code from NCSA after Andreessen left to found Netscape, so Netscape was competing against a bad version of itself, made worse by Microsoft.

Edge is just a commercial IE alias. It's still IE, just like Firefox is still Firebird, a XUL based browser.

Hold on. GitHub has become too much of a monopoly? And this is somehow fixed by being acquired by Microsoft?

Yes because at least MS's competitors will take their code elsewhere, and F/OSS will hate to depend on MS services, no matter what.

Well, at least you're right about code moving away from GitHub - spreading the code around to multiple services can at least in theory make it more resilient to any one service failure / takeover.

> We didn't forget that our community was called a cancer

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.

Yeah, this is so disingenuous, Balmer had really no other words to use. This was totally appropriate, and as a FOSS lover and somebody that was able to make half of my carreer thanks to those licences, I should not be offended. No matter how much of my free time I spend on projects protected by said licence.

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.

That's a choice that the developers choose to make to enforce their wishes. It's supposed to be embraced by a capitalistic system, i.e. they choose to serve only the customers who abide by their terms. Free market!

I don't think MS, whose OS infects every PC on store shelves has any place to complain.

They cant just ask for forgiveness after all that they have done.

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.

As soon as SQL Server isn’t an inescapable trap for your data, my impression of Microsoft will improve on the developer side.

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.

The name is burnt. They still are a company with business interests. While their interests might align today with the open source community this doesn't have to be so tomorrow and there is no resistance internally to burn these bridges they are building today.

I actually was never anti-Microsoft but I must say that the aggressive, user-hostile moves they made with Windows 10 seriously irked me.

Microsoft need to stop creating sub-par products.

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.

Haloween documents, and literally the twenty years they've been trying to destroy free software.

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.

What about the people who hate Apple just because `Apple`?

(or any other form of "brand envy" against other companies, for that matter.)

> What about the people who hate Apple just because `Apple`?

Yeah, sure. I'm totally on that but this isn't a thread about Apple, is it?

Blatant what-about-ism.

Dislike the word "hate". It is more people that have been in the industry for a long time know what Microsoft has been all about for a very long time.

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.

The funny thing is that Google is 20x as evil, and the fanboys still love them

Oh please, very few people actually like Google.

It’s very different when it’s a direct competitor, especially one you’re paying $ to every month. CEOs hate funding their competitors.

I was looking at draft.sh from the Azure open source team and the current (very early) version literally only works on Mac. The only install method listed is Homebrew.

Actually we have release assets for Mac, Windows, and Linux with support for 64-bit and ARM architectures. Someone from the community added Chocolatey support not too long ago. :)

Disclaimer: I am one of the core maintainers of Draft.

Oh, nice! Please update your docs. Releasing code is worthless if no one knows how to get it.

Thanks for the feedback! I'm currently going through the docs and re-vamping them as we speak in https://github.com/Azure/draft/pull/770. For now https://github.com/Azure/draft/blob/master/docs/quickstart.m... is the canonical list of options to install Draft.

Awesome thanks. Would you recommend WSL for my dockering on Win 10 or stick to Powershell.

Do what tickles your fancy.


I do have a bit of experience in acquisitions, and revenue is king, for which you have to move fast; changing the stack of an already working system would be suicide. Definitely expect more native GitHub integrations in Azure, and Azure first tools.

I have absolutely no knowledge of the deal.

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.

It's generally not a good idea to make unofficial statements about the choices your employer might take in the future, especially if your employer is a public company. There are some weird legal things that can happen. (e.g. If you say, "Microsoft is going to support technology XYZ" and then someone buys shares in technology XYZ because you said this, and then Microsoft doesn't do this, are you liable?)

Thank you for this, I should have put a disclaimer.

Minor clarification: LinkedIn primarily runs on Java not Scala.

Microsoft bought one of my favorite pieces of cloud software from a few years ago Deis[1]. With that they also got Helm[2] with the purchase. They are doing GREAT with Helm and are going in a different direction that looks super cool as they mothball Deis called Draft[3]. They are moving away from the OS company they used to be and betting heavily on cloud technologies and I think this Github purchase makes sense. Github has been stagnate for years. MS is embracing open source in a way they haven't before, and I think they are doing so in a way that is going to surprise people.

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.

[1] https://deis.com [2] https://docs.helm.sh/using_helm/ [3] https://github.com/Azure/draft

> What if they made a Github open source module and would let you federate your content?

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 don't disagree with you on the threat to our ecosystem, but I think Github has been treading water for a while. I'm really excited to see Gitlab step up, especially with the traction they are getting from the diaspora, but I don't know that they will. There are a ton of reasons people won't take Gitlab seriously as a replacement right now. I hope they find a way to take their tools and this new attention and produce what we all really want.

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[1] 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.

[1] https://keybase.io/blog/encrypted-git-for-everyone

Helm was contributed to CNCF last week: https://landscape.cncf.io/cncf=hosted,graduated,incubating,s...

Draft (which started with Deis and is continuing with Azure) continues to get active development: https://landscape.cncf.io/grouping=landscape&landscape=appli...

I don't know how I haven't seen CNCF before, but can you give me (and anyone else who might not know) a brief summary of what they do?

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.

I'm the executive director of CNCF and would be happy to answer any follow-up questions. Here's a good overview deck:


Oh! Well then, nice to meet you!

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?

Halfway down https://www.cncf.io/projects/ has the best overview of why you should host your project with CNCF and the services we provide.

In the automotive industry, I would recommend our sister organization, Automotive Grade Linux. https://www.automotivelinux.org/

The first question I asked was really important. I think y'all are selling snake oil. Your responses here confirm that for me.

I personally will be avoiding your organization like the plague.

Reminder: That didn't stop them from converting HoTMail over to NT/Exchange.

How many times did they try and publicly fail first? Two or three? Excellent validation for choosing FreeBSD and Apache for your 1999 startup. At least two announcements that it was "complete" turned out to be lies.

Years later the back end was still on FreeBSD and Solaris, but the front end was on Win 2000 using Windows Services for UNIX.

Twenty years ago!

It took them about 20 years to do so also.

> Given that GitHub is quite proudly built on Ruby

And for that matter, GitLab as well :-)

Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact