It's interesting to hear this. If you were on HN the past week, it might have seemed from all the front page articles that GitHub was about to implode due to an an exodus to GitLab.
At first it was hosted on http://peterburk.free.fr, my parents' ISP. That was fine until I no longer lived with them, and I can't trust that it'll always be available. Also, I wanted a .com subdomain instead of a .fr domain.
So in 2011, I moved to http://peterburk.appspot.com on Google App Engine. No problem, until I moved to China in 2013. All Google services are blocked there, including my page. So I migrated to http://peter-burk.rhcloud.com (Red Hat OpenShift). I didn't like the mandatory dash in the subdomain, so I also set up http://peterburk.tumblr.com to redirect. RHCloud supported PHP, so I could finally run WordPress.
What do other people do for ad-free hosting? I think most sites pay for AWS, but I can't have a credit card because I'm a foreigner. The design of my site is very basic, because I've had to re-write it 4 times already, typically every 2 years. I choose technologies based on the platform features, so I did know all about GAE, but now I'm more familiar with Git. My loyalty isn't to the code management tool (this is for side projects, not a business that would need collaboration with colleagues), I just move to wherever is free/not blocked by China/has an easy-to-remember domain name.
By your own domain a $5/month VPS and host your apps just the way you like it.
Just 10 years ago, geeks like us used to take pride in buying domain and creating a personal presence with one's domain name. Don't people do that anymore?
I find this trend of looking for free hosting services a bit disturbing. Because you know the cliche that when you are not paying for a service, you are the product.
Even if you do not want to buy a $5/month VPS, please buy the domain. Costs less than $1/month (more like $10/year) and point the domain to your favorite free hosting service with CNAME entries. GitHub and Heroku support such custom domains with CNAME entries.
ok. so they weren't on github. GOSH!
Nat was a cofounder in the same way that Jeb Bush was a US president. Connected to one perhaps but not one himself.
That being said, it's way too early to tell how this will evolve trust-wise. Microsoft has a tremendous deficit of trust in the open source community. Younger folks probably don't realize how deep it runs; most of my friends and colleagues who were involved in FOSS in the late 1990s and early 00s wouldn't touch anything with Microsoft on it with a ten-foot pole -- not just because of prejudice, but because fool me once etc etc.. And I wasn't thrilled about hosting code on someone else's computer before, either, but now I'm even less thrilled about hosting it on Microsoft's computer.
Now I don't think about them much at all. I'm not thrilled that they now own a vital part of the OSS world, but I'm optimistic their overall irrelevance to my life will persist.
Also: Gitlab also has to exit one day. The only question is who buys them.
Meanwhile, the biggest player (by far) in the market just abandoned dreams of an IPO. Gitlab is a distant third place in that market, and has a revenue model that is best described as “like Github, but cheaper.”
IPOs are only viable if you have a business capable of supporting them.
Aha, I thought I may find you on this thread, once again pushing the same line.
Source: Gitlab guy in one of the many, many, many Gitlab or Github threads recently.
I personally decided to move my stuff out of GitHub, but it will take me a week or so to know where exactly as I'm still analyzing various options. And after migrating, I don't think I will close my account (even when I really distrust Microsoft) simply because too many libre software projects are currently using GitHub.
It's going to take a while for me to move out of Github.
I have a lot there over years and scripts that use Github.
Also Gitlab's import is failing on some repos.
It's also suddenly pushed me in a place where I have to suddenly find an alternative.
It's going to take some time.
But the real value of GH was "social coding" - open public access to open public projects.
That's going to fragment, even if GL takes over. And that will be a loss.
The real problem is the lack of open public server infrastructure. In the same way that everyone has access to a browser, everyone should have access to a private server, which is secure-by-default, controllably networked, super easy to set up with a selection of server apps that include social, commerce, payments, and public/private sharing of various kinds, and cheap to run.
The centralised consumer internet - where servers are far beyond the skill level of most users and can be a nightmare to set up and administer, even for professionals - is one of the reasons we have giant predators like MS and Facebook.
We can only guesstimate with the data we have.
That is, as long as Facebook is able to identify and track an individual, they can make money even if the user never spends much time on Facebook.
So, stock price is not an indicator of Facebook usage.
So I don't care really care how many leave, in fact that's a clever distraction. I care about who is leaving.
The number of repos that were imported to Gitlab via their GitHub importer had crosses 100K on Tuesday if my memory serves me right. GitHub has 75M repos, I believe. For now, the migration has been potentially significant, but too early to tell.
Overall, I’m sure there’s something to glean from places like HN and some parts of Reddit, and other similar places. What exactly you can take away, I’m not sure about yet.
There was a front-page article of some survey that was saying something like 40% of people were going to or already did delete Facebook. Not a correct number of course.
Based on... what exactly? That's a big claim to make without any data.
I don't even know what that means; it's so vague and lacking in detail as to be useless. Of course "people care about things in situations". but we're talking about _what_ they care about, and that depends on the situation. For example: "are Nazi's bad?". I don't need to see hard numbers to believe that the answer from most people will be "yes". "Is MS buying GitHub bad"? That's a whole other story. The vocal minority often doesn't represent the majority in things like this.
I think it's pretty clear that most people in fact _don't_ care about the things the-dude cares about. Privacy, lock in, using services provided by "evil" companies... these are things a tiny fraction of people care about. You know how I know that? All of these companies you don't like are _insanely_ successful.
>It's interesting to hear this. If you were on HN the past week, it might have seemed from all the front page articles that GitHub was about to implode due to an an exodus to Gitlab.
and the-dude said:
>I think most people mirrored instead of closing. Spin.
You changed that to
>I think most people (who migrated away from GitHub) mirrored instead of closing. Spin.
Maybe that's what the-dude meant, I don't know. The implication is also that a significant number of users migrated and mirrored, and we have no idea if that's the case. That is my point. You can assume that many who migrated would have mirrored, that's reasonable, but it's not reasonable to assume that a significant number of people are migrating away from GH due to the acquisition, which is absolutely what the-dude was implying.
I can see the source of confusion though; I did quote the "most people" bit and didn't touch specifically on the above until just now.
I imagine how hard it must be for organizations to do the same.
Source: I work for GitLab.
I guess they count as mirrored.
Also remember that many of these writers are the same people who claim they are boycotting the latest company that slighted them as a way to make a statement.
Like the people who are so vocally not buying a phone without their beloved jack plug. Surprisingly the manufacturers aren’t really feeling their sting.
Most (semi-)serious projects make use of this, which makes migration harder.
(I'm expecting that this has been done and I'll be deluged with links...)
And yeah, that's a nice sentiment. But it doesn't require anything of you. What happens when that person _needs_ something. A house, a loan, a ride, etc. "Being there" is well and good. But it's the secular version of "thoughts and prayers".
If nodejs, google, and other big names/organizations decides to leave, then I think it is time for Microsoft to worry.
The first hint of Microsoft and GitHub was around 6 pm EDT/11 pm UTC on Sunday.
And like others are saying. Even if that is the case, it isn’t a huge number with context of Github’s size.
I suspect acquiring GitHub was more about the developer mind-share than the technology.
But bear in mind, extremely long-term support for business workflows is Microsoft's obsession: Even if they decided to "retire" VSTS, it'd probably get updates for the next decade or so.
Online IDEs still eat up a lot more resources.
Maybe Nat is trying to counteract any PR damage to GitHub, or maybe he just wants to see how much can skyrocket his account's karma. If I was in his situation I will be happy doing it for both reasons.
If Nat doesn't gain developer and corporate traction, Microsoft replaces him in a smash move of hiring a well-liked CEO. However, if he is lauded by developers, then he stays as CEO.
(and yes, I destroyed the account I did an AMA on a while back as well.)
Unrelated, but I really like your blog! It's one of the few I read.
1: https://blog.codinghorror.com/ (for the people that don't know it).
He may even be interested in taking the pulse of some of the community and learning from interesting questions.
I know I would.
It would be a great PR move and an amazing build of trust.
I don't know why Github was not open source to begin with.
Why do companies still think source code is a big deal?
This is not Google Search or some advanced AI.
Microsoft bought GitHub for over seven billion dollars. You don't buy something for that kind of cash unless it has that kind of value. Saying they 'should' do something as though there is a problem is silly. Engineers here on HN are so quick to say what someone "needs to do" something... but in response to what? What problem are you identifying? A vocal minority of engineers have complained about the acquisition, meanwhile GitHub has 28 million users. Most of those users don't care that this happened.
They simply will be more competitive.
2. They want to improve their "Open Source Friendly" image and they've been taking meaningful steps towards it.
3. Why not? What's the downside of doing so?
Even if you prefer Android/GitLab, you can't deny that most of the early innovation was copied from iOS/GitHub. In fact, most open source projects (Linux, Firefox, OpenOffice, etc) take their lead from closed source competition... and for all those examples, that competition was Microsoft. That's not to say they can't eventually innovate, however much of the R&D, creation of a marketing, etc come from closed source.
The downside of Open Sourcing so is losing billions of dollars from companies who say "rather than paying $10k/mo, I'm going to just fork it for free".
Lastly, part of the value of GitHub is the network effects. If everyone's hosting it on their own, then there's no network effect.
GitHub :: iOS
CodePlex :: Windows Phone
Makes complete sense...
That is NOT what happened. Microsoft is in the process of purchasing GitHub, which likely won't happen before the end of the year. The agreed price was $7.5B in stock not cash.
I don't know if GitHub going open source is likely or even beneficial, but imagine if they chose to develop an open standard for PR/issue/comment data. The easiest way to show you are going to play fair and win via quality and trust is to make it easy for people to leave. IMHO, that's where I'd push for/encourage.
Well, that's a pretty brazen answer.
What are your thoughts on how GitHub can incentivize open source work financially? Perhaps by integrating something like Patreon or OpenCollective in the website.
It seems that he won't answer it. Still would be awesome if GitHub started addressing this in some way in the future.
EDIT: He answered it.
There's really no reason that a CEO currently making headlines should be on /r/AMA instead of r/IAMA (70x more users).
Ignore anyone who brings up “Embrace, extend, extinguish”. I’m not an MS apologist but no rational person can still consider that to be relevant. There are many reasons to distrust them, but that isn’t one of them.
"Embrace, Extend, Extinguish".
I’m not saying they get a free pass for it, but they’ve more than earned their trust back over the last decade.
^ from wikipedia
If they sold each for $10, then thats $1.5 bil (if my maths right). So I think it's safe to say that they have not made their money back ... yet.
Try justifying to management moving to gitlab because Microsoft...
Then there was their locked-down file formats, their role in killing off BeOS and preventing pre-installed Linux machines, their "embracing" of open technologies like Kerberos only to make their version subtly incompatible. For well over a decade, almost everything they did technically rubbed us tech folks the wrong way.
> His name is actually Clippit, and you will address him as Mr. Clippit.
Being able to interact with the community in a human way is definitely a good signal, imo.
I think the president analogy really holds. A president who you could have a beer with can get away with a lot more crap then one who has to prove it through policy.
I’m definitely being a bit nit picky, just saying it’s not a good metric.
Hope he answers that one.
> Miguel de Icaza: but the idea of the nugget
> Miguel de Icaza: The essence of the nugget
> Miguel de Icaza: The nugget
> Miguel de Icaza: It keeps me away from the radio
> Nat Friedman: yeah i can see that
> Nat Friedman: what you've got, son, is a nugget fixation
> Nat Friedman: a common issue in the mid-30s man
> Miguel de Icaza: I do
> Miguel de Icaza: Oh, is that what it is?
> Miguel de Icaza: Is there some ointment I can use?
> Nat Friedman: you need baboon urine
> Nat Friedman: very expensive
> Nat Friedman: luckily i have some that i acquired on ebay some months back
> Nat Friedman: using the 'sort by price' selection mechanism
> and should not be asked.
None of your business.
Since when is stating my opinion on an opinion-based community none of my business?
I am saying these questions should not be asked. Please provide a counter argument.
More importantly, it's an ama, and the fact that he is about to be github CEO is secondary. We don't want movie stars coming there just for their latest release (if you overdo it, it's a disaster. Google Rampart AMA)
Finally, my intention was to be brief, but stop short of disrespect (and I am sorry if it offended you). Unfortunately I seem to have approached you with the same condescension you showed for (I)AMA's users
I still do not agree with "it's none of your business to sayt what questions should not be asked on a reddit community". With that line of thought, none of this is our business to be on the internet and providing opinions. Instead of focusing on what's someone's business and what's not - I recommend you state why asking, what I believe to be useless questions, would be beneficial. What insight does it provide? I understand it could be fun and quirky but literally, every thread on reddit...I mean every...single...thread... on reddit starts with a joke.
He seems to be playing the typical corporate lackey role. His comments are all full of condescension, platitudes, and corpspeak. He sounds more like a PR person than a principled leader. He's saying exactly what he thinks his audience wants to hear. It's not surprising that he thrived as a Microsoft exec.
That he's willing to make promises about GitHub's future is also telling. He's the "CEO" of a company owned by another company. He can be fired and replaced at the first hint of disagreement with Microsoft execs. He can't afford to rock the boat at all and he knows it. So he's being dishonest or naive when he makes these promises. A more honest or aware person would make this distinction clear.
Microsoft ruining GitHub over the next few years will be a good thing for open source. There was never anything ideal about relying on a highly centralized proprietary service. GitHub made it work but Microsoft will reveal the inherent weakness of this situation.
He's not an open source developer with a great project that now leads GitHub. He's a corporate guy that now leads GitHub under Microsoft executives.
Ximian led development of GNOME, which was one of the largest open source software projects at the time. Nat showed up to the hackfests and wrote code like everyone else. He is absolutely an open source developer, whose later career has been in management.
While Mono itself wasn't widely adopted, it was the code base that Xamarin came from, which _is_ quite widely adopted. And Xamarin Studio (now Visual Studio for Mac) is built using the "no adoption" Mono.