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

> 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.

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