Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
What is wrong with Microsoft buying GitHub (jacquesmattheij.com)
182 points by okket 71 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 220 comments

Microsoft is not a company that ever contributed my life as a Linux user and open source contributor for years. In fact, it always made life harder for me.

Here is a recent example; because Microsoft made a deal with Lenovo, now new Thinkpads are designed for just Windows. If you're a Linux user, good luck in your new adventure. People say "isn't it like IOS or Android?"; it's not. We had this freedom of using Linux, and Microsoft has been taking it back.

Microsoft doesn't appreciate freedom, this is why they used to fight open source and make open source communities look like bunch of marginalized geeks. It's sad to see they now own Github.

> because Microsoft made a deal with Lenovo, now new Thinkpads are designed for just Windows

As a Linux on ThinkPad user, I'd be very interested to learn more about this.

I'm not really the person to speak to this, but I haven't seen it mentioned, yet. Maybe someone more versed in the topic has something to say.

The Wikipedia article reads fairly neutral, e.g. 'Microsoft clarified...' Well, what I remember from that time, from the tech press (right or wrong/exagerated) was much more along the lines of 'Microsoft hacked a compromise in response to the increasing pressure of backlash' -- and this back and forth happening multiple times.




Using Optimus is a horrible experience in Linux. I just turned off the discrete graphics because it was power hungry.

fingerprint reader doesn't have drivers available, even blobs

So, are you saying that both Lenovo (that say in manual for x280 that in select countries it ships with Ubuntu) and Ubuntu (That here https://certification.ubuntu.com/hardware/201801-26057/ claim "certified pre-install for Ubuntu.") are lying?

If you are using Linux you are using Linux kernel that is managed by git. Microsoft contributes to git.

> Linux kernel that is managed by git. Microsoft contributes to git

This is a little misleading. MS does not contribute to git for Linux development. Instead, they only provide windows specific patches (AFAICT, would like to be proven wrong).

Their GVfs [0] is windows only, and they maintain a fork of Git with "microsoft specific patches" [1].

[0] - https://github.com/Microsoft/GVFS

[1] - https://github.com/Microsoft/git

(edit: formatting)

Microsoft had a "look at what we did for git last year" post in january, most of that seems OS-independent performance work: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/devops/2018/01/11/microsoft...

Yes some of that work also improves Git on other systems.

All of those patches however were a pure necessity for them to implement GVfs.

Well, I guess we just have to wait until that deal expires then, before we replace our laptops :)

A Thinkpad lasts for a very long time.

You know that Microsoft are the largest corporate contributor to open source projects on Github right?

I care about how much they respect freedom instead of how many lines of public code they shared. Technology can be bought or bruteforced, freedom can not.

Minor nit to pick, freedom can absolutely be both bought and brute-forced. We call them (less-relevant example in modern times) "buying yourself out of slavery" and (slightly more relevant) "war".

What are you basing this off? This article?[0] If so, then it only supports my shared belief with roadbeats that Microsoft out of most of those companies has had little impact on my life as an open source user.

[0]: https://medium.freecodecamp.org/the-top-contributors-to-gith...

Little positive impact. Microsoft has shit on open source for years and had a negative impact on your life as an open source user. I know that you know this, just saying it for the sake of saying it.

They are the biggest software company, so when they decided they want to embrace and extend open source, it's not surprising the quantity of released code is higher than of smaller companies. The argument here is different: we don't really believe MS changed much from the time they called Linux and GPL "cancer" and used all possible means, some of them quite grey, to completely annihilate all significant competition.

Imagine there are two cities in a country, city A and city B. The president lives in city A and is very popular there, but not so much in city B.

Person from city B: I hate the president. He never did anything good for our people.

Person from city A: On the contrary, this is the best president we had in forever. In fact he built 5 hospitals and 10 schools in our city alone! How can you possibly hate him?

Like, maybe Microsoft has contributed to some open source projects, but are these open source projects something everyone benefits from? I'm not even sure what their open source projects are.

Also, isn't it a big conflict of interest then? When the largest user of a platform also owns this platform, it kind of puts other projects at a huge disadvantage.

I don't think the issue is where MS has contributed in terms of open source. For me, it doesn't matter: It's great that they do it, but their history of aquiring companies and driving their products into walls (like Skype and so many others) hasn't changed. So, when I see "MS acquires open source hosting platform", I'm thinking about that, not how many lines of code they've opensourced.

Of course, if MS wanted to dampen that reaction, they could distribute the whole code for GitHub as a platform under an open source license - I just can't imagine them doing that.

> I'm not even sure what their open source projects are.

.NET ?

Microsoft is probably one of the largest contributors to Linux itself.

Not at all, they're not even in the list of the contributors, as you can see on the 4.16 kernel statistics : https://lwn.net/Articles/750054/

The list doesn't vary too much with the versions, so either they're working under the radar as "Unknown", or they barely contribute to the kernel.

Microsoft contributes a bunch of money to The Linux Foundation now but they really don't contribute very much code. Their main concern seems to be keeping Hyper-V working well so that Linux VMs are performant on Windows server. They don't register as a top code contributor in the last Linux Kernel Development Report: https://storage.pardot.com/6342/188781/Publication_LinuxKern...

>>We had this freedom of using Linux, and Microsoft has been taking it back.

The only thing taking your freedom back is the economics of selling Linux Desktops/Laptops. And the only thing stopping that is the Linux ecosystem fragmentation.

I'm sorry but no hardware vendor will lose sleep over some thousand developers wanting to run fragmented versions of Linux on their hardware.

>>Microsoft doesn't appreciate freedom

The purpose of companies is to maximize their profits.

>> this is why they used to fight open source and make open source communities look like bunch of marginalized geeks.

And they've by and large failed. The other part about open source's economics is beyond the scope of Microsoft's actions.

Closed hardware. Microsoft is just following Apple's lead here.

Linux runs on my ThinkPad just fine.

But if you have Optimus working at all, you dumped a couple of weekends into it, right? The dual-graphics auto-switching thing (which I had on my old W530 and now again on my P50) is jank city even with properly tuned "bumblebee" software installed, and proprietary stuff is to blame for that.

It runs on mine ok as well, but the fingerprint scanner doesn't work

The idea that some companies must be forever tainted by their misdeads in the past seems odd to me.

Companies change leadership, direction and style and it seems odd to suggest that there's some underlying quality which means that, regardless of that, you can never trust them (or in reverse that you should always trust a company you once trusted)

There seems to be a trope with Microsoft that they're still the same company they were in the 90's, but the senior leadership aren't the same people and I'd imagine neither are the staff.

Is that to say that the Github acquisition will be an unalloyed good, no.

but I would say that people shouldn't automatically assume that it'll be a disaster...

Windows 10 is really recent though.

That said, since I like controversy: I'm happier to see Microsoft buy Github than I would be to see Google or Facebook buy it.

And also! A big shoutout to Linus for helping to make source control distributed and open, which means swapping between git providers (for the code at least) is simple, easy and impossible to block. The amount of good Linus has done for the world is incredible.

Another recent example: lockdown of ARM-based Windows machines, preventing the installation of other operating systems.

I really dislike how you get downvoted (your message is faded out) here. Do people really applaud removal of control of their own devices?

I think it's because Microsoft's reason for doing this is plausible and not as anti-competitive as that comment makes it seem - locking down the boot process has serious security benefits.

I admit I may be ignorant, but could you spell out the security benefits of going from "locked down but user-openable" to "not user-openable"?

(edit: specifically benefits that couldn't be effectively addressed by making it a little difficult and scary to open that lockdown?)

If it's openable it's not locked down. If I can't trust the kernel then every level above it is tainted (this is assuming you can trust the CPU and firmware, but at least ARM is better than Intel here).

OK, let me be more accurate: "user-openable" in the sense that the user is free to choose to trust any OS vendor they want. What's the unmitigatable harm?

A user that isn't the owner of the device - say a repair tech, but possibly a remote third party - installs an OS they trust, which scrapes all the device owners personal info and sends it to their server. The device owner may not ever become aware of this.

For the remote third party case, the option to unlock should be isolated from the OS so that it needs physical access (boot to bios/recovery mode). AIUI that's how it's typically implemented in Androids and in Secure Boot.

The point about attackers with physical access is fair, though significantly mitigated on Androids (and Chromebooks I think) by a warning (of varying severity) that the OS has been modified. On my Nexus 5, it's a subtle "unlocked" icon, on my Moto G it's an unmissable red triangle on white background with "warranty void" and other scary words.

It's still vulnerable to the user getting a prebooted device and only seeing the warning on next boot, so not perfect, but also not the only imaginable defense. One could e.g. move initial authentication to the locked down "bios" phase so either (a) the warning is visible there and/or (b) the OS isn't replaceable in the first place without authentication.

And we should bear in mind that a malicious repair tech can probably convince a fair portion of the population to give away their password :/

Yep. These are all fair points.

You mean like Android or iOS?

Like iOS yes, and some, but not all, Android manufacturers/phones.

"Others do it too" is not a very good justification in my mind.

"Others do it too" is not a good justification of course. But his comment also fails to to explain how Microsoft is somehow more evil than the industry standard.

Bootloader lockdown was practically unheard of for the PC/laptop form factor before Microsoft started doing it for ARM laptops. And and it's not even really standard for phones. Plenty of Android phones have unlockable bootloaders (see LineageOS).

I don't think whether one is more evil than Apple/iOS in this regard is a good benchmark.

You mean unlike most other desktop/laptop OEMs/manufacturers?

(which would be the more apt point of reference)

Lockdown of consumer grade devices isn't really a new experience (e.g. iOS devices).

There's a trade-off to be had between security/reliability and flexibility.

If MS were selling those devices as general purpose computers and then refusing to allow other OS installation, I think that would be dishonest, however as far as I'm aware they're not making such claims.

I don't see the tradeoff honestly. Sure, make it a little difficult, show a big red scary warning, perhaps even require the use of a screwdriver to discourage "casual" users from being misled into compromising their machine's security.

But ultimately true ownership, recyclability/reusability (Linux on aging hardware..), and hardware-independent OS competition are norms with significant benefits that we shouldn't give up lightly.

Those may be norms for IT professionals, but the needs of IT professionals are very different from those of standard users.

Realistically most people (numerically) don't want a computer, they want a thing that lets them communicate, create and consume content.

Lockdown isn't a problem for them, and walled gardens like iOS are generally the best way for them to stay secure.

If you provide a method to escape the sandbox, it is likely that attackers will work out how to exploit that. For example try going to facebook.com and open the developers tools. They've had to put a warning in there to stop people from "self-XSS" ...

That's why I'm entirely OK with making it scary and a little difficult.

And it's not just IT professionals, but also their friends and family, especially those that can't afford to or don't want to get a new device that often. I think this is a pretty significant set of people.

So are you not ok with the concept that some people don't need that option and, as long as the vendor is clear about what is and isn't possible, having some devices that are more locked down that others is acceptable?

If I knew that to be the end-game and if I knew it to be an informed choice on the part of consumers, yes, I'd be OK with that.

My two reservations:

1. I think such a lockdown is a kind of hidden anti-competitive "dark pattern" that benefits the seller much more than it benefits the consumer by significantly lowering the the reuse/resale value of the device. One could argue it makes the device cheaper to begin with, but I have serious doubts about that. The anti-competitive effect seems more likely to increase the price instead. Hindering reuse also implies an environmental impact, though I'm not sure how significant that is.

2. If lockdown becomes the norm for >99% of devices/users and even we tech people start to accept it the way of things, some sufficiently bribed lawmakers will no doubt be inclined to make unsurveiled general purpose computing illegal because "security" and "copyright" and "pro-business" etc. Yes, it's a "slipper slope" argument, but when it comes to social norms, I think that's a valid form of argument.

I see a benefit to lockdown, which is improved safety/security for non-technical end users.

Security is a difficult topic, even for IT professionals, and it is easier to secure a locked down environment for non-technical users than an open one.

If you look at mobile platforms as an example, the prevalence of malware on Android compared to iOS is significant.

Now for many I'm sure that trade-off is worth it, but I also feel there is a place for more controlled environments.

If a significant number of Android security breaches indeed happen through misleading a user into unlocking their bootloader, that would be a convincing statistic to me.

But I'm under the impression that that is exceedingly rare and that Android has many way more pressing security concerns (e.g. the lack of driver security updates to even slightly old devices).

Access to root on the device is the pre-requisite of a lot of attacks, and this presents risks.


Also the control which allows users to install sofware from different sources, leads in many cases to them installing malware masquerading as "free games" or similar.

Android malware is a much larger problem than malware in the more controlled iOS world.

so to me that's a real trade off. you have control of your device and the ability to install software from more locations, however your security risks increase.

For some people that risk will be entirely justifiable, for others, it makes sense to have an option of a more locked down environment.

Personally I like Linux for servers (I have control/responsibility) but for my smartphone I use iOS as it's easier to secure and I don't really want to use that device for "proper" computing.

That's fair, and those numbers for rooting are a bit higher than I expected. There's the caveat that rooting and complete OS replacement are somewhat different topics, but those stats are still relevant.

So clearly there's a significant demand (some of which I'm inclined to believe is very legitimate), and clearly there are significant dangers.

I guess in the end it comes down to the eternal debate of freedom vs safety. I find it very hard to side with the stance of protecting people from their own stupidity, beyond giving stern warnings. It feels sort of like giving up on cultural progress in humanity :/

And I think we could still do much more to mitigate this attack vector (Big flashy red lights with "probably a bad idea" in all-caps? Adding more fine-grained permissions so root is needed less?) before ceding yet more control to powerful organizations who are already, somehow, in a position to tax 30% of all software and IAP sales on most devices and reject apps that don't align with their interests.

> If MS were selling those devices as general purpose computers

They are computers, regardless of what sort of dress they wear, and users should have control over their own computing devices.

Well yes, Windows 10, finally a practically usable Windows in my opinion. Finally working, with a lot of polish and Dev tools available. (Like wsl)

It was pushed down the throat of customers, using dark patterns and “better ask forgiveness than permission” ethics. It also took away choice from the vast majority of users, and started sending opaque and vaguely described telemetry.

The problem with Microsoft wasn’t that their software sucks (some does, some is great).

It is that they have been bullying users and companies for the past 30 years. Many people point to a “new Microsoft”, and the win10 rollout is a stark counter example to that claim.

Yea, the telemetry one was kind of shady at the beginning, when it got turned on again after every update. That's changed a while ago though, and you can actually look through all the telemetry you're sending.

And you still cannot properly turn it off. Weird and invasive things still happen with large updates (bundled so you cannot pick and choose which changes are appropriate for you, such as security fixes only). The whole OS is a few quality of life changes that make it palatable to most people to deal with all of their frankly offensively invasive practices.

I don't buy the usability argument of WSL. The thing isn't anywhere near a useful Linux environment other than for some noddy stuff that cygwin can already handle. Try running a background process, a service, use a serial port or drag some half decent performance out of it and you'll see.

It is ultimately backed with NTFS and NT's buffer cache. Running a VM is still several orders of magnitude more productive. And you can't fix NTFS and NT now. It's impossible.

Serial ports work fine with my Arduinos. I regularly flash stuff using ESP tools from WSL.

Is this a recent change with 1803?

I was attempting to use AVR-gcc toolchain and some SCPI over serial stuff with WSL unsuccessfully.

That's… completely false. At least for me. You should really stop and think before accusing people to have noob workloads.

Even cronjobs work… The performance is sometimes better than on native linux, as a few of the syscalls are better implemented on windows. The file performance is abysmal, but that only hurts if you're using npm (and there you're in a world of pain already anyways).

The only thing lacking, is that some debuggers don't work, which is a pity, but then I just start a docker container and mount it on my filesystem.

I am using services on it too actually, everything works as expected. I can actually create windows bat files to redirect to linux binaries, which lets me do for example OCaml development, with the linux toolchain, on a system that actually works reliably. (my experience is, that as of windows 10, desktop linux environments crash way more often than windows ones)

Grep 150,000 source files on Linux and on WSL and come back to me. That's a pretty standard console load. It kills git operations, package managers, compilers, the lot. ALL the tools I use it for. Well USED it for.

Real data:

linux -> 1.3 seconds, all from buffer cache on a cranky old 10 year old HP desktop with 8 gig of RAM and bottom end SSD.

wsl -> over a minute on a 12 core i7 with high end m2 SSD, every time.

This is because of NTFS's awful performance on small files. The whole of Unix is file based and uses huge numbers of small files, as does source code generally so this is an end game scenario for the platform. It simply sucks!

This goes back to when we had SVN which would take 6-7 minutes to check a repo out onto NTFS versus 20-30 seconds onto ext4 on the same rust disks. SVN was treated like cancer by the organisation for what is fundamentally a platform limitation.

As the maintainer of ripgrep, I pay attention to these sort of things. I will say that I noticed a similar performance problem in my tests as well, but further investigation revealed that Window's antimalware process was severely throttling file reads. Once I disabled that, performance on Windows is nowhere near an order of magnitude worse than Linux.

Thanks for commenting. I have disabled windows defender on the machine and tweaked the filesystem with fsutil and it is still running at over 40 seconds on the same workload.

Source code files are small... but hardly a lot though. I've usually been doing extensive search on big files, and ripgrep is great for that (and available for windows).

I just use `git grep` which isn't as fast as ripgrep (https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep), but is still damn fast (on Windows).

  $ find ~/src | wc -l
Maybe, maybe not.

> practically usable Windows

- forced updates (and forced restarts that go along with that)

- OS level advertisements (even though you are still paying for the OS)

- impossible to configure privacy settings

That alone makes it one of the shittiest OS's ever released.

Realistically, out of all of the BigCorps who could have bought it (and who have deep enough pockets to sustain its bleeding,) Microsoft is one of the best of a bad bunch.

I'm not quite as cynical as the author of the OP when it comes to Microsoft's recent apparent change of direction, but who knows, that may just be naivety speaking.

the best out of a bad bunch... what does this even mean. They are killing a neutral force in the market space there is nothing good coming from it.

It seems like the alternative was GitHub running out of cash, so the main good coming from it is that GitHub will continue to exist.

Better integration with Microsoft's existing ecosystem would be a good outcome (for developers working in that ecosystem) as well as more investment in general. As others have stated, VSTS is excellent so they definitely know what they are doing in this space.

"Nothing good coming from it" seems a bit of a stretch when we don't even know the terms of the deal yet - or indeed whether it's actually happening at all!

I think MS made mis-steps on the Windows 10 privacy setup for sure, although they've largely fixed it in later releases with improved visibility of Privacy options and better docs on how to disable most of the telemetry stuff.

Personally I like Windows 10 as a general purpose client OS, WSL is great and stability for me across a number of devices has been very good.

> and better docs on how to disable most of the telemetry stuff.

How about disabling all of the "phone home" stuff, telemetry or whatever else? There is still only two options "Basic" and "Full" options without any "None" option and really most of the relevant options are scattered all over the place, making it a chore to disable them (and you need to redo that stuff every big update). This is either extremely dumb (which i doubt) or done with malicious intent so that people will miss stuff and/or get tired of them.

Unless they provide the means to completely stop all communication with their servers with a single switch, there is no reason to give them any benefit of the doubt.

Yeah but they reset your privacy settings with every update. Thats what we call dark patterns.

What you say is worth considering, but I think you implicitly overstate two points: 1) their shenanigans aren't as old as you imply 2) these crimes happen over the course of years.

You talk about the 90s, but it was in 2004 that the EU ruled against them, and 2008 that they were fined for ignoring that ruling. It was in 2011 that Ireland and Spain started to investigate them for additional anticompetitive practices (though I can't seem to find what cam from this).

Much more recently, they've been rather litigious with respect to patents (Microsoft uses patents offensively).

Then there's the telemetry stuff in windows and Skype centralization, and probably more that I don't know because...

What _has_ changed, is Microsoft's relevance. They're still huge in some markets, but many business' and individuals barely interact directly with the Microsoft platform/ecosystem.

Personally I believe that the only difference is the marketing. There is little two way communication going which is the same old Microsoft. Are they listening to their customers complain about telemetry, enterprise licensing, support and product stability and dependability? No. They're blinding everyone in an attempt to cover up the decrease in privacy, data collection ramping, gouging of enterprises to force them into the cloud, the declining quality of support and declining product quality. Even targeting the platform is like hitting a moving target that is on fire.

But it's ok because someone said they're a new company and they have a new figurehead.

I don't buy it. I'd be an idiot to buy it. I've been around a long time and this is a typical corporate cycle. They run like the sunspot cycle. We're at a solar minima at the moment.

First, MS hasn't stop its bad behavior. When did you think it stopped ? They became better at PR (their teams even pop in HN, Reddit or ...Imgur, they are very good), and they can get away with less BS because they have better competition. They did not get better.

Secondly, with your point of view, as a society, you just promote abusing entities. Politicians, companies, anything with power really. They make a lot of bad things, on a lot of years, then benefit from it, and now boom, what ? Stairway to heaven, along with the loot they got from the misdeeds ?

This is how you end up with corrupted systems and unfair societies.

You don't have to punish them again and again for the crimes of yesterday. But yes, it's perfectly fair, and actually sane, to remember, and say you don't want to have more relationship with them now.

Tainted for the past? Did you see what happened with windows 10 or that they are not able to fix skype? To be honest there are screens popping up every day from one stupid mistake after another from ms. They have more dead products in their portfolio than anyone else they embraced change on the xbox to do a 360 afterwards. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE should put any hope into MS doing the right thing or be a reliable partner for a business. They just burned way to many bridges. Don't get me wrong if you are going for core business stuff like windows ltsb or azure you gonna be fine but never jump on anything new and hype from ms.

So a company that has a bad product launch or problems should be avoided?

Would you avoid all google products (and indeed most other tech. companies) on that basis as well? they've had their fair share of things gone wrong, products killed etc.

I don't see that as a strong argument against an MS acquisition of GH. Microsoft have had quite a good story in recent times in the developer tools arena (e.g. Code)

Well, google is in the same boat as ms with their 8 messaging apps killing of services left and right. As I said if you use to core products you are fine. MS and google left to many shit stains on the carpet to be trusted anymore. You have to be kidding me with the developer tools arena just because you are one of the hipsters falling for wsl and vscode doesn't mean they have done good for the general programming platform. Look at the UWP/win32 dilemma or the PWA "integration" or even .NET. If they don't fix their stack I am not gonna praise them for some gimmicks like you are.

> a bad product launch

So are you telling me that windows 10 has stopped forced updates (and the forced restarts that go along with that), stopped all OS-level advertisements, and made it easy to permanently turn off all telemetry on one settings page?

Or is their product still a flaming pile of shit?

> but the senior leadership aren't the same people and I'd imagine neither are the staff.

Not disagreeing with your overall point, but culture can persist through employee and leadership turnover.

And the people who reached the top now are the ones who lived and worked happily in Toxic Microsoft of the past 20 years. I dont buy in their change of nature either.

not only that but i would be more willing to accept the change as hones if it did not came out of the previous failed attempt at "Embrace, extend, and extinguish", but to me this honestly feels just as another attempt with different strategy, they are taking a play from googles book.

> There seems to be a trope with Microsoft that they're still the same company they were in the 90's, but the senior leadership aren't the same people and I'd imagine neither are the staff.

Their senior leadership consists of people who were obviously OK with working for Microsoft when it was performing all those misdeeds. They may have changed as people perhaps, but at some point the very same people who are making the strategic decisions now decided that working for the 90's incarnation of Microsoft was a morally acceptable choice. I'm not sure why I should suddenly start trusting these people now?

> senior leadership aren't the same people and I'd imagine neither are the staff.

This is largely irrelevant. Saying Microsoft makes a lot of money from hosting Linux workloads on Linux machines does not change the fact they'd make even more profit if Google and AWS were unable to compete. In that regard, open source is a tool to lure workloads into an environment Microsoft can control and shape to its will.

Microsoft's incentives are still aligned with harming the parts of the open-source ecosystem that don't run on Windows. That has not changed (and won't, as long as they make and sell proprietary software platforms).

> the senior leadership aren't the same people and I'd imagine neither are the staff.

And what about their clients/cash flows? Microsoft still sells to enterprises and governments, so their incentives are to keep adding backdoors and Orwellian telemetry to everything.

At least in the late nineties I felt that Microsoft was merely unfair to their competitors. Now they're openly hostile to their end-users as well.

Anyone with any morals would never want to be associated with the Microsoft name, so anyone who does is untrustworthy by default.

And besides, the current CEO was the one who went from Scroogled to mandatory telemetry, while focusing on renting out servers at a ridiculous markups. Don't forget the new focus on the Windows Store either. Or the locked-down ARM laptops.

So it's not like the current management is innocent either.

  Anyone with any morals would never want to be associated with the Microsoft name, so anyone who does is untrustworthy by default.
I'm not in the pro MS camp in this debate, but that sounds like a "no true scotsman" to me.

It's modus ponens, no logical fallacy here.

I disagree with you there. "Modus ponens" implies sound reasoning on the implication part, not ad-hoc claims and hyperbole.

As a thought experiment: Replace "Microsoft" with your favorite open source project and see if the argumentation still holds.

The biggest problem with the acquisition is that it's yet another core piece of infrastructure gobbled up by one of the big players.

Do we really want to move towards a world where there will be just one huge tech company that owns everything ? Because that's where we're heading.

I see no evidence that they are a better company.

They are currently embracing open source and Linux, very visibly.

Phases two and three will be along soon enough. (Extend, Extinguish)

I have been around since Microsoft's core product was Basic under CP/M. It was not so bad. Later, Microsoft had one of the best debuggers for Unix. I used it every day for years.

Then Microsoft became bigger and bigger and they did that by becoming increasingly Evil.

The problem with Microsoft today is not that all their technology is bad, sluggish and annoying. They still have some competent developers working there. The problem is that although they put on a lot of lipstick - they are still dead Evil. They want your data. They want to do all the bad things Amazon, Facebook and Google (data mining) Apple (exclusive sales of Windows applications trough their store - and forcing you to have their music, xbox and other crap installed on your computer).

The only reason Microsoft is not generally regarded as Evil today is share incompetence. They don't know how to make an instant messenger - so Skype is useless and people use other programs. They don't know how to make a large website - so Linkedin is just as useless as Skype. People leave.

Nokia is the best example of Microsoft's incompetence. They buy the most successful phone brand in the history of the world - and in just a few years it's over. The employees are fired, nobody wants the phones, and their appstore is a wasteland of useless crap nobody wants (that's what happens when quantity (number of 'apps') is the only measurement for 'success').

Microsoft wants your data. They want video-cameras in your home. They want to listen in to what you talk about in your bedroom. They want to sell that data to 'Partners', advertisers and law enforcement. They want to be Amazon, Google, Apple and Facebook - but they have no idea about how to make anything that people actually wants. So they buy successful enterprises, redeploy their army of managers from hell there, and turns it into dirt. That happened to Nokia. That happened to Skype. I think that was what happened to Linkedin (I don't know the inside story, just that it quickly became useless). Now they want to do the same to github. So sad.

For developers, it's not a question about to leave or not to leave. It's just a question about when. No matter how much you love or hate Microsoft - they will for sure turn github into dirt - like everything they touch - and then at some point you will leave. Eventually you'll have to leave in 2 years when the shut it down.

"They still have some competent developers working there. The problem is that although they put on a lot of lipstick - they are still dead Evil."

The problem is that they have some competent developers working there, when realistically they need badass talent like Google and Apple has.

Whether or not a company is evil is subject to opinion on what you think a company is meant to do. A company is meant to be profitable.

The only thing I see in this acquisition is that Microsoft want's to improve it hiring abilities and to gain control on a few open source projects like Electron and Atom. Projects that they use for example in VS Code.

Like I wouldn't be surprised if Electron was their only interest because of Web Assembly being on the horizon and the fact that Windows is still the dominant desktop OS, but their web store doesn't deliver like Google or Apple stores because developers attention is already split between Android, IOS, and Web development.

Long story short, Microsoft has a lot to gain by integrating Electron into Windows because to develop for Web is essentially the same as developing for Windows. (in this regard they gain the same edge that ChromeOS has)

Plus the more Microsoft embraces open source the closer we get to a Linux based Windows OS. Which sounds horrifying until you consider that Linux shipping on every computer in the world means all these projects developed for Linux will get to actually see the light of day.

You know, I completely forgot about GitHub owning Electron. And I'm sure there are other GitHub projects that I've overlooked. Maybe MS didn't purchase GitHub for the repositories but for the support programs. Hmmm...

Their pattern of bad behaviour extended far beyond the 90s, and all the stuff that happened with Nokia gives me pause as well.

As was their OOXML, ISO-stacking shenanigans.

Microsoft have a history of bad behaviour, and repeatedly abusing monopoly positions. How many chances at goodwill should I give them?

Also don't forget that Microsoft Research has published an enormous amount of papers, whereas Apple Research ... (does it even exist?)

I can appreciate some of MS Research's papers and former personalities whilst still having zero trust in MS Corp.

Perhaps the whole concept of having trust in a company is flawed, as board members come and go, and shareholders keep pushing the company to the boundaries of what is desired/acceptable from a societal perspective.

Take a look at recent technologies they tried to push. UWP for example. I don't see any change in direction here, to be honest. They try to lock-in developers on every step.

Many devs are looking elsewhere, so they paint themselves as having changed. And they did, to an extend. But you if they ever get in a position where they could reign in developers, you can count on it that they will try.

> The idea that some companies must be forever tainted by their misdeads in the past seems odd to me.

That sounds odd because pretty much nobody has that idea. The alternative to looking too much at history is not to ignore history completely.

Considering your point, what has Microsoft done since the 90's to make you believe they had a change of heart/culture/orientation?

They're the largest corporate contributor to open source projects on GitHub :)

Taht means little to me. Is Facebook excused for their scandals because they open-sourced and maintain React?

It may mean little to you but you asked me what I saw, not what you saw :)

>The idea that some companies must be forever tainted by their misdeads in the past seems odd to me.

Are companies people?

>but I would say that people shouldn't automatically assume that it'll be a disaster...

Are you saying the purpose of this acquisition is to make GitHub better? If not, why would Microsoft be interested in buying it?

But companies dont change shareholders much. They are the real bosses in the end of the day.

Microsoft is pure evil

- they wanted to access my computer after I upgraded cpu and motherboard as Windows 10 deactivated. That is despite I have full retail version. It took three days so that they acknowledged they won't get remote access. They required me to run some weird binaries to activate Windows again. That was super creepy.

- Soon after I bought VS2015 pro, VS2017 was released. They didn't want to give me a refund so I would get VS2017 or didn't offer upgrade price. Consultants were rude.

Windows is a spy machine. I only run it for software that doesn't work on Linux.

I hope Microsoft dies.

I am in the process of moving my stuff off of GitHub.

> - they wanted to access my computer after I upgraded cpu and motherboard as Windows 10 deactivated. That is despite I have full retail version. It took three days so that they acknowledged they won't get remote access. They required me to run some weird binaries to activate Windows again. That was super creepy.

Are you sure that you were not scammed?

I am sure. That was via Microsoft Support chat and email.

It's not like GitHub was the perfect open source place anyway. The platform itself is not open source in any way and it has been plagued by a few scandals.

'i've deleted my account' seems very pedantic and most of the arguments brought up are rather old. However, i do agree on the skype thing - man it got bad after MS bought it.

Don't think any company that can afford to buy another company for well above 1.5 billion (i understand the worth of GitHub in 2016 was around 2 billion) has a pristine past.

I myself am optimistic but some few questrions popped up:

Microsoft is very proactive removing things from azure and shutting down sites as soon as they receive DMCA complaint or abuse complaint.

Are they going to remove important github repos like these if they get DMCA or other complaints?

https://github.com/Roy47Zhang/CSGO-Aimbot-Project (cheat for Counter strike)

https://github.com/rg3/youtube-dl (download from video streamers)

https://github.com/kurtcoke/DemonHunter_Exploitkit (exploit kit)

https://github.com/lontivero/vinchuca (p2p botnet)

the second I hear any repos being removed by Microsoft, I i will dump my private repos and leave.

What's wrong with this? I don't want unauthorized infringing projects jeopardizing the service the rest of us use legally and ethically. Invalid DMCAs are another story, but what's the harm of respecting an IP owner's valid DMCA request?

Indeed. "I'll leave if they dare comply with the law" seems like a strange argument, even if you disagree with the laws in question. What if it's your copyrights / patents that are being infringed?

it will become a sterile, homogenous environment.

Its the diversity (like the repos mentioned above) that made github the goto code-sharing site.

I, for one, would rather jeaopardize the service to defend the rights of such fringe developers. Together we stand.

You might think that the reason GitHub exists is to be an altruistic public service to all developers, but that's not the case. This is: https://github.com/pricing As a paying user of GitHub and a member of organizations that use its commercial services, it would be completely absurd for them to put a dozen employees out of work because they have to support a pointless lawsuit of not removing an infringing repository that isn't making them any money in the first place.

Keep an eye on this one, then:


Complaints should be respected and violating repos should be taken down.

github has already been removing repos for DMCA and other reasons

These are absolutely legal software, they don't violate any DMCA rules, M$ and github don't have right to remove it.

The behavior of using these software maybe illegal, and violate EULA, the company can punish the user who is using the software according to their EULA, but there is nothing directly related to the software itself.

The biggest surprise to me was that Github was running at a loss for a considerable amount of time. Given their roots as a bootstrapped company, I would've assumed that they would be more disciplined in their spending. I'm disappointed that they've decided to sell rather than go public, I would've happily been a shareholder of Github if given the choice.

Going public would probaly have been near impossible with large losses and a competitive marketplace where there are alternatives available you can switch to if price is too high.

This would be true for any industry other than tech. It feels like every single tech IPO follows the same formula of going public while posting large losses. See dropbox, box, twilio, spotify, snap, or any other high profile S1 of the last 10 years and you will find that almost none of them make a profit at the time they went public.

GitHub has always been proprietary and centralised. If you choose to host your open source project on a proprietary service, you can't exactly be surprised when a different company buys that service.

Not commenting on the acquisitions rumors;

> The acquisition of Skype, after which all the peer-to-peer traffic was routed through Microsoft, essentially allowing them to snoop on the conversations. To pre-empt the technical counter argument that this was done to improve the service: It only improved the service for some edge cases, for everybody else the service got worse because of the extra round-trip latency. So if that was the real reason then you’d have expected to see the traffic routed to the central servers only if one of those edge cases was detected.

IIRC the main reasons this was done are (i) due to the complexity of porting P2P code across many platforms and (ii) for resource consumption on mobile devices. These are hardly edge cases.

I know lots of people think Microsoft did this to kowtow to the NSA, but I'm willing to bet it was really done for the same reason that Apple fundamentally re-architected FaceTime: patent threats.

How about the alternate reality where GitHub is desperate to monetize and/or is acquired by a company that is... don't think it could happen? Let me tell you a little story about SourceForge...

SourceForge have recently been acquired, by a new company that is a lot more friendly to everyone. But even then it still has a very bad reputation.

I don't disagree with any of what he says. But he only includes the negative things they did. It's also worth remembering that ms also helped democratise computing. In the late eighties, early nineties Unix was an ivory tower. Only large organisations could afford it. Apple was expensive and closed. Windows was cheap and open. It worked with every kind of hardware and peripheral. And with dev tools like VB a lot of software was written and systems built for people that otherwise would just have had to stick with paper.

> ms also helped democratise computing

I find that laughable. Their client and processor licensing model is of the Oracle school.

Large OEM's are still paying the MS tax on machines supplied are they not? (MS get fee on every OEM machine sold regardless of whether it includes Windows. Buy a Dell Linux laptop and MS still get their $x)

> Unix was an ivory tower

Hmm. What of BSD+FreeBSD? Hell even MS Xenix ran on 10x the range of machines that Windows did.

Late 80s, early 90s folks like Sequent were charging a bomb because they included 4 or 8 processors and gobs of memory (for the time). Sun and SGI charged a fortune because 50% of the machine cost was the graphics and IO, and a net stack that worked. A Sun lunchbox wasn't that much more than an equivalent spec PC of the time but gave SCSI and networking. None of that plug and pray or fucking around with INT settings in BIOS, driver settings or it suddenly developing amnesia.

SunOS (usually) just worked, Windows usually didn't until Win2k finally arrived and you could actually have uptime over a daily reboot.

The expensive stuff in the Unix world was where there was no comparison in teh PC world or you scaled up. Multi processors, Sun pizza boxes where 50% of the cost was the top end graphics (always buy the flight sim CD when speccing that one), 100+ serial ports, racks full of USR Couriers etc. NT didn't scale (see Hotmail and the infamous scaling demo scam).

> Windows was cheap and open

It was neither.

I'm not going to reopen VB memories. :)

Some of the shenanigans I've seen recently from MS employees in the .NET Core and JS space doesn't inspire me with confidence... For all of Nadella's "turning over a new leaf", it will still take a generation to change the culture of 120 000 employees

Could you give some details? I’m no longer intimately involved with either technology but from what I can see Microsoft has been doing a lot of good things in .NET Core and with TypeScript. What are the shenanigans you’re referring to?

> the shenanigans I've seen recently from MS employees in the .NET Core and JS space

Do you have links? I Havent heard MS doing anything malicious recently in these spaces.

I guess the non compliance to GDPR by using opt-out instead of opt-in for their telemetry in .netcore and vscode.

As I understand it the information isn't PI and so isn't covered by GDPR.

A generation of employees in tech? That's like 3 to 5 years

Microsoft’s brute force approache has never worked and will never work. It really doesn’t matter who heads it. As indicate by RMS, and proven time and again, these ethical questions at the heart of the free software movement are important and there for a reason. You can slap “open source” on anything these days, and it has been the case for a while, but it’s missing the point. And dangerous for the free software movement.

Assuming GitHub was actually losing money and couldn't fix that problem quickly enough it's fair to assume they had to sell, and it's reasonable to believe there aren't that many companies who could have bought them if you think an understanding of the domain is important, then you're really limited to Facebook (user surveillance, adverts), Apple (bad at software, not developer friendly), Google (user surveillance, adverts), Microsoft (history of extinguishing things) and maybe Oracle (very hostile).

Regardless of who GH sold to they'd be facing a ton of negative reactions. Microsoft's actions recently make me thing maybe they're actually the least bad as far as their dealings with developers go.

Microsoft don't have a competing product in their portfolio to extinguish Github in favour of - and any overt moves like kicking projects off the platform would instantly torpedo any value the acquisition brought as every single project left the service in protest.

I don't really see how anything other than being perfect stewards of Github works out in their favour.

> Microsoft don't have a competing product in their portfolio to extinguish Github in favour of

Actually they did (VSTS, TFS), but it was so hilariously bad that they started moving to git a couple years ago.

They also used to have CodePlex, but eventually they killed it and migrated projects over to GitHub.

Microsoft is the worst-case. Everything Microsoft touches turns into dirt.

Google would had run it very successful for a few years, and then suddenly shut it down. Oracle would have strangled it slowly, and then given in to the Apache foundation (where projects go to die).

Facebook may actually have been a good choice - except for us select few who don't use Facebook at all.

The assumption is missing some context. A couple of years ago GitHub underwent internal re-organization or, as some people put it, got overrun by suits. Predictions at the time were rather grim.


Some parallels to the Nokia-Elop affair could be made.

The real lesson here is that GitHub should have tried to develop a profitable business model by increasing the range of products services they provided and experimenting with universal tiered pricing.

How about Atlassian?

That would essentially be a merge with BitBucket, so people would complain about there being less choice.

Atlassian would have pretty much no reason to buy GitHub, unless it's to shut it down.

They have Bitbucket and I think is pretty safe to say that they don't care about people hosting their open source stuff.

Of course you can use Bitbucket for free but where the big bucks are for Atlassian is the enterprise market. I don't have market data but I don't think there are many big corps using GitHub as opposite to Bitbucket together with other Atlassian products.

You'd be surprised. Case in point is my current main client, a huge national broadcasting company which is using Jira and Confluence for everything on one hand, but is just setting up a GitHub private instance on the other.

I'm indeed surprised and I'm sure there are other cases like this out there, it would be interesting to know the thinking behind it.

In my experience of working with big corps, if you are using Jira and Confluence, Bitbucket simply offers much better integration with them and lately Atlassian is rocking it with new features and deeper integration every time.

You are absolutely right from the technical perspective, but I guess these decisions are based on buzzword matching rather than any sound technical design.

How is Apple not developer friendly?

XCode is a clunky horrible mess of an IDE, iTunes Connect is worse, and they charge $100/year for a developer account. Also, they try to lock you in to buying Apple hardware to develop for Apple devices (though you can get around that using, among others, Microsoft's Visual Studio App Center).

You can use AppCode. XCode being a mess is not making Apple developer unfriendly, it just means that they don`t know how to make a good IDE. I don`t mind 100$ per year if it means better support then nonexistant Google support. Also if I am making money off the platform I don`t mind paying. And it also stops random people submitting crap apps to the store.

And it also stops random people submitting crap apps to the store.

It clearly doesn't work.

It's much better than the Windows app store though.

That isn't really a good argument

Agreed about XCode but Eclipse is also a horrible mess of an IDE, that doesn't make IBM unfriendly to developers.

Apple store EULA agreement with developers is the most macabre and lengthy mis-spelling of the words: "fuck you".

Its not a nice agreement.

Apple places users first, developers next, hardware makers (direct competitors) last.

Microsoft places competitors (people who develop operating systems, databases, etc) on an entirely different list.

Apple shuts down hardware makers in the Apple eco-system aggressively and at least Microsoft usually has the manners to buy out the developers that makes things it likes and wants to integrate into its OS.

Apple is user-friendly first. Developers for Apple technologies come next and all other developers who like the Unix environment of OSX come next. The only reason I use a Mac is because the computer is very well built, fast enough, and runs an OS that's Unix-like enough for my needs.

The fact it's not Linux is the reason I routinely use two other laptops, one with Ubuntu, one with Fedora (and a big Lenovo box that runs about a dozen VMs).

> How is Apple not developer friendly?

I’m going to put in some good faith and assume this comment was meant sarcastically and not as a pure trolling.

You haven't dealt with Apple faithful much I presume.

They are, just not to the FOSS crowd that tries to use macOS as if it was GNU/Linux with a pretty face.

Well, you pretty much describe my use case for Apple laptops. I resisted for a long time and used Linux desktop for dev work, but when I bought the first MacBook I never looked back. I would describe macOS as Linux desktop that works.

That is great but the point was that it has nothing to do with apple being developer friendly or not.

How is Apple bad at software?

> I’ve deleted my GitHub account, I’ll find a way to replace it and if you’re halfway clever so should you.

So clever.

I can't think of a worse way to get your point across.

Agreed, as much as I dislike the acquisition, even I just wait and see. I'm setting up a migration plan right now of course, but I'm not going to activate it unless I have a good reason to.

Agreed, this is ridiculous.

Has there even been any kind of official confirmation that the sale is going ahead? Or the terms of the sale?

Sabotaging a pivotal part of your own development workflow entirely based on internet speculation doesn't seem "clever" at all to me.

I like it when ppl say I'm halfway clever.

Halfway clever is an aspiration for me.

He's implying he is at least 2x smart than we are.

I think he is just warning people he thinks should be warned of something that matters deeply to him.

I suspect he assumes that anyone reading his blog / HN is already All-the-way clever and one can read it as "everyone should delete their account"

Personally i am more sanguine

How much Microsoft loves open source is also proofed by the case of MeeGo. Their agent, a certain Mr. Elop, hugged it to death.

> The first MeeGo device came out in 2011 and won all kinds of awards and is to this date the only flagship consistently ranked better than its contemporary iPhone, while MeeGo is the only OS ever launched in smartphones to be ranked as good as - or in some reviews even better than - Apple's iPhone iOS operating system. THAT was Nokia's strategy in January 2011. Only a delusional idiot would change this.


Has there even been any kind of official confirmation that the sale is going ahead? Or the terms of the sale?

Sabotaging a pivotal part of your own development workflow entirely based on internet speculation doesn't seem "clever" at all to me.

If not Microsoft, who would you have liked to see GitHub bought by? Presumably they'd have to find an exit eventually.

My vote would be Mozilla. I can't think of any other company I'd want running a service for "the greater good".

First step, Github Theme will go Fabric. https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/fabric

Second, More ms tools in github.

Third, atom is dead.

Bright enough I guess.

Microsoft acquiring Github has completely busted my chops. I am totally depressed now. Is deleting your account from Github is a viable solution? Where to go from here. Bitbucket?

GitHub is for all intents and purposes dead. They just don't know it yet. Open Source is the closet thing to a religion in programming and selling to Microsoft, while it makes commercial sense, is heresy in all but name.

I moved all my workflow to Linux back-in-the-day (actually just over 2 years ago, but hey) and never looked back. I'll be damned if I let Microsoft in by this particular backdoor.

Like the author, I'm deleting my account as well.

Microsoft is on the good direction today (comparing to what it was).

But problem is when management changes. after all their values are different. All classic big corporate stuff, their business model and expectations from investors. things can change in the future when making money is the main goal..

But the good thing is that GIT is easy to migrate. So we can migrate anytime that things goes wrong..

Github is still a great product/service. Hope they don't ruin it.

I would look at using client- side encryption of my pushes upto github as a possible third way between fully trusting MS and deleting my account


NB the irony of the top ranked article on git encryption being hosted on Github is not lost on me ...

I agree with this article on the basis that if Microsoft's incentives haven't changed, then there's no reason Microsoft should be expected to behave any differently to the nineties.

Arguing that they're a different company I think should require arguments that their incentives are different, and I don't see that they are.

I'd suggest that MS incentives are very different to the 90's.

In the 90's they made their money from on-premises software installations, Windows/Office/SQL Server etc.

So their incentives then were to ensure that people used their software as much as possible.

Now the growth engine for Microsoft's platform is services (e.g. Azure). On Azure you can deploy Linux and Windows based applications, the underlying OS doesn't matter, Microsoft still make money on it.

This means that their incentive is to have a good and smooth developer experience and to get as many people onto the Azure platform.

I think for them today selling Azure is a bigger incentive than selling Windows and Office.

Let me clarify: Selling Azure is absolutely a bigger incentive than selling Windows and Office. And more generally, selling solutions instead of technology.

Their #1 competitor is AWS. They don't even mention Oracle, Apple, or really even Google.

What I find sad is that github didn't find a way to be profitable on its own.

I would really like to have some Consumers' co-operatives that would provide hosting/online services around open source. I wouldn't mind to pay something to have private hosting for me and subsidizing the hosting open source projects.

> Foxes may change their coats, they don’t change their nature.

It seems clear today that the "Developers, developers, developers!" thing of Steve Ballmer is still in the plans of Microsoft.

I wonder how do people who believed in the modern Microsoft with Nadella feel now?

Awesome! Now we can end the mass delusion and realize Git sucks and has been a monumental drag on developer productivity. Thak you Microsoft!

I'm waiting for a reaction from Linus and Stallman


On a slightly tangential note, my company has a massive Yammer install (200k+ account) and I always wonder if people can discuss in yammer group about replacing Office by G Suite, without triggering anything. This is kinda paranoid, but I am still astonished that a company can essentially put all its communications, roadmap, and so on on another company platform. Even if you do not compete frontally, at some point, there are some diverging interests.

I understand that the risk would be too big to eavesdrop on your customer, you would ruin your reputation and your product, but still, it seems the temptation even by a rogue employee could be strong.

This is not a jab at Microsoft, it would not be better if it was another mega corp platform.

Related - Slack is also widely used as a communication mechanism in many large companies. This seems fine but I wonder how attitudes would change if Slack got acquired.

People move their entire companies knowledge, documents and communication to Office 365 just to save some money. Even government or military institutions do it. I guess it's just how things are nowadays.

Well.. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17214257

Unrelated, is this standard practice when sharing a link to the HN Discussion?


> I’ve deleted my GitHub account, I’ll find a way to replace it and if you’re halfway clever so should you.

Is this satire?

Microsoft used to be bad (M$) but if you haven't noticed you can now run Linux on Windows and sql server runs on Linux.

We're in the twilight zone bro; all bets are off.

Running Linux on Windows solely benefits Microsoft and Canonical, not the Linux community.

We're not in the twilight zone, we're in the zone where Microsoft realizes it's more profitable to leech off of others' efforts.

Well, it benefits developers who use Windows machines and develop applications for Linux.

I'm genuinely curious as to what drives a developer to run Linux on Windows rather than just booting into a Linux environment.

Is that software support? Is that hardware support that's not available on Linux?

Desktop linux has been much less reliable for me. I'm also using a surface device and like to use it for sketching.

Special input devices is a thing. I doubt the Cintiq would work with any of my Linux boxes in the same way it does on the Mac. This is how we end up with multiple computers...

In general, desktop Linux has been rock solid for me. I even keep my music collection on BtrFS and, yes, I know it's tempting fate.

I very much feel that I benefit from running Linux on Windows.

What feature of Windows justifies the performance hit and the odd idiosyncrasies of running Linux on top of the NT kernel persisting data on NTFS?

Leeching off of others' efforts is standard practice to many so called FOSS contributors, so why should Microsoft be singled out?

Wouldn't it benefit the Linux community if switching from Windows to Linux becomes easier? Also at the moment SLES, OpenSuse, Kali and Debian are available in WSL.

Where is Microsoft office for Linux? You can buy it for OS X.

Sure, I don't need it and could care less.. just saying.

You can use the online tools on Linux.

You can, for now.

TLDR; the 90’s happened. Delete your github account because Microsoft is evil. I’m surprised this article got this far because it really doesn’t add anything unique to discussions that are already happening.

Putting personal sentiment aside (delete github account part) an article like this is needed to sum up and justify developer worries that are scattered through discussions here and other online communities.

That’s my whole point. Without the part about deleting your account and the unnecessarily long introduction to what github is this article is a bullet point list of what Microsoft did in the 90’s. (With the exception of the telemetry and skype acquisition) Anyone can look up this history.

not all of us witnessed the 90's..

Read this stuff: http://www.catb.org/esr/halloween/

And after you do, remember that Google, Apple, Amazon, etc. have also read those documents and now they're smarter about hiding it.

Also, Microsoft has changed and we're not living in the 90's anymore.

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