Microsoft doesn’t do everything right but the GitHub acquisition has honestly gone better than I ever expected. Rather than forcing GitHub to adopt Microsoft centric policies, Microsoft has adopted more GitHub stuff, especially from a product POV. GitHub still runs as a separate company (different logins and health care and hiring systems) with its own policies and point of view.
The reality is npm was in a bad place and in a land of not good options, this strikes me as the best possibility. I’d rather have GitHub control this and be able to give the resources to npm than a company like Oracle or Amazon or even Google or Facebook to own it. In a perfect world, some independent entity could fund npm out of gratitude but at the same time, consider how poorly npm as a company was run for YEARS and the general lack of direction.
So yeah, I’m cautiously optimistic this won’t be fucked up by GitHub — but I understand the concern.
As for those worried about Microsoft embracing, extending, and extinguishing. Lol. Even if that was the goal (and I truly don’t think that’s the ethos at all any more), Microsoft is laughably incompetent at achieving that sort of strategy. Google and Amazon have the EEE under lock right now (Facebook too — let’s be glad Zuck didn’t buy this after we saw what happened to yarn), but Microsoft can’t even put coherent dev strategy outside of .NET on Azure.
That's what we said about the Skype acquisition too.
"It's different this time, it will run independently, for once Microsoft won't interfere and destroy the acquired company".
3 years later (I was there), 50% of Skype original management and developers left. All the major new projects of Skype turn out to be integration with the endless already existing Microsoft products: integration with Link, integration with microsoft ID, integration with Microsoft UI, etc...
5 years later, Skype is dead... but everyone left already.
Good job Microsoft.
Seriously, go use products like Google Hangouts, Slack or Microsoft Teams (Microsofts's surprisingly better clone of Slack) and then tell me that Skype was ruined by integrating with Microsoft's other product base. The closest argument you might be able to make is that Skype could have developed new features or updated its UI and stayed competitive, but that wouldn't give them the competitive edge that it's competitors nearly all had in terms of being backed by major tech companies. Additionally, the major revenue source was Business tier use, which Microsoft dramatically improved by integrating it with their other cloud-based business suite applications.
Microsoft didn't kill Skype, if anything they extended its life expectancy and value in markets that actually paid to use it. It's dead/dying now because better tools have been developed and marketed to replace it. That's just standard product life cycle.
Personal experience, but I have not found a single person who likes MS Teams. Usually people around me say that Slack is ok-ish, while MS Teams is crap.
I've the misfortune of being forced to use Skype and I would kill to have it replaced with Teams at my workplace.
There is a half-baked link between Skype and Lync to make it seem like it's the same product. This link is all shitty mainly because Lync and Skype work completely differently, and even simple things like call signaling have to deal with years of legacy Microsoft SIP extensions that were punched into Lync.
I remember the first time we received access to the Lync code repository. That stuff was a multi-GB (!!!) repository that contained files, promo videos, PDFs, code, etc. That tells you much about the development practices behind Lync.
It's not great, but in the corporate space, Teams does an OK job, and MS is a reputable company for B2B.
Corporate standard at my place of work. I hate Hangouts with a passion. It's the worst messenger, feature- and UI- wise that I've seen for years.
> Microsoft Teams (Microsofts's surprisingly better clone of Slack)
No it isn't. Used Teams at another company which adopted it as the standard. Couple of years ago. Feature-wise it was like a proof of concept, very early access.
> Additionally, the major revenue source was Business tier use, which Microsoft dramatically improved by integrating it with their other cloud-based business suite applications.
Again, I worked at another company where Skype for Business was the standard and nobody ever used it unless they needed formal IT help or something.
All the teams I'm acquainted with at my current place refuse to communicate on Hangouts and, in violation of corporate policies use something else like Slack or Mattermost.
You have to understand that the technology underlying Skype at the time was very brittle and poorly designed.
Google almost bought Skype before Microsoft did and backed out after they got a look at the code.
When Microsoft acquired it Skype was routing its traffic over port 80 for example.
__I have to understand__ ?
Who is saying this? do you have any credentials / knowledge of Skype technology? My understanding is that you only report indirect discussion from "your friends who worked on it"?
Having been there, I would say quite the opposite.
Skype had pretty intricate means to bypass NAT to NAT clients. I would even go as far as saying that Skype P2P connectivity tricks were top notch, considering the incredible amount of different network setups that clients could face. Even in the weirdest conditions, you could trust your Skype client to somehow find a way to get the call through. This was through an immense collection of in-house-trial-and-error-STUN-hole-punching like techniques.
Now I can understand that for people outside of the peer to peer connectivity world, these techniques could seem completely foreign and brittle, but it's not. It's the world of internet clients we live in. It's not related to Skype, it's the route all peer to peer clients have to deal with. If you don't want that, don't go peer to peer.
> Google almost bought Skype before Microsoft did and backed out after they got a look at the code.
Where did you get that information? I had never heard of that interpretation of the story before.
My view on this is that Google considered buying Skype, but backed up because they wanted to have a cloud based service, instead of a p2p one. Microsoft was in the same state of mind, but decided to go along and migrate Skype to be a cloud service, which they did.
Now if you really want to discuss technical details and the state of Microsoft/Azure at that time, I would be pleased to do so.
Microsoft started the migration of Skype to the cloud at a time Azure was just a big beta test. Nothing was working properly, the tools were sub-par or in-existent. Nothing was reliable. You would deploy Azure services through remote desktop automated by PowerShell scripts. Managing databases was done through in-browser silverlight clients - yes, that was already EOL at the time, but that was the only way to perform DB queries with a UI.
When complaining about the deplorable half-baked status of the tooling and cloud services that we were required to use to migrate Skype, the only response was "Yeahhh, Eat your own dog food".
Thanks but no thanks.
All the great Skype engineers left in the two years after the start of the migration to Azure - mostly to join Twilio.
He did not think Skypes p2p communication was a good fit for Google, going so far as to say it ate up bandwidth and was like an old technology.
The PM's remarks could be summarized as saying the basic p2p communication architecture was overly and only used in order to avoid a cloud/server based architecture.
Basically, the PM thought Skypes architecture and code base couldn't effectively scale or meet real world business requirements that people would pay for.
Like VCs who try to invest in a company but lose the deal (or never get to see it at all): "Oh FooBbarApp? Yeah, we passed"
Put another way, if both sides block 80 incoming, their only hope is fancy NAT-punching techniques.
But those NAT-punching tricks are useless if they are using a port that is completely blocked on the outbound side.
“On 10 May 2011, Microsoft Corporation acquired Skype Communications, S. à r.l for US$8.5 billion”
I think Microsoft has changed significantly in the last decade.
I’m quietly hopeful the npm acquisition will go well for us (although I still hold some serious grudges about Microsoft’s past behaviour).
Thats not the important thing, thats the problem. Npm could easily be an open source client. Contain less code and be better. And have a mirors system like every other repo so it does not need money for hosting.
Npm wanted to control nodejs and make money out it. And they have.
Microsoft purchased that control and plan to make money out of it.
This is bad news for OS dev.
The NPM client is and has always been open source: https://github.com/npm/cli.
> Npm wanted to control nodejs and make money out it. And they have.
In what way, other than offering private package hosting for enterprises?
What does this even mean?
No interest in mirrors from day one.
Npm sold out to Microsoft and got paid. All that free community effort to stop Npms "crashiness" got sold to Microsoft for dollar.
Nodejs went to the Linux foundation.
Npm went to Microsoft.
You said they controlled nodejs, and that they somehow earned money by controlling nodejs. I think that neither of those has ever been the case.
What happened with yarn? As a very casual user of it, it seems to work well and have pushed npm to innovate a bit when it was stagnating. But I haven’t followed it lately. Were there technical issues or political drama?
I mean, zip files are hardly complex. PnP is a breath of fresh air and lets you commit packages "safely" to your SCM without LFS. NPM has been experimenting in v7 with similar ideas.
I'm personally quite fond of "zero-install" setup to a repo.
.NET Core was a great move and it's all coming together nicely now, and even creating innovations like Blazor.
> Microsoft can’t even put coherent dev strategy outside of .NET on Azure
They said that .NET and Azure, two separate things, are very well managed. OP did not imply any correlation between the two of them.
I missed something, what happened to Yarn?
This seems to be pretty fair about the whole thing: https://shift.infinite.red/yarn-1-vs-yarn-2-vs-npm-a69ccf022...
IMO its crazy we're here, growing up in the IE days, but Microsoft acquiring influence over the JS ecosystem in this day and age is at least arguably, as OP stated, a distribution of power.
Support is middling, but once you get it working, you have near-instance near-zero size installs.
 They never officially announced it, but they almost certainly de-staffed it to the point where it's barely on life support: https://imgur.com/a/jQBHsUk
What a surprise, the VSCode fanboys are coming in droves to downvote and say nothing more than how Atom was going to die anyways.
Sure, maybe it was, but that's not the point. The point is Microsoft _actively pulled development resources away from Atom after explicitly claiming they wouldn't_.
I get that a lot of people like VSCode better than Atom, but _please_ put things into perspective for a moment and consider if you'd make the same comment if the same thing happened to _your pet project that happened to be #2 in popularity but then got axed after being acquired by the company who owned the #1 after claiming they wouldn't do exactly that_.
Whatever your opinion might be on Atom vs VSCode, can we not at least agree that this kind of behavior is something we should hold acquiring companies accountable for? It might not make any difference to their bottom line at the end of the day, but the least we should do is hold them to the fire in the court of public opinion.
If commit activity graphs are really a meaningful measure, look at VSCode's:
The number of commits per, uh, date unit (the graph is not super clear on that axis, honestly) across the entire length of VSCode's activity graph rarely drops as low as the highest number of commits per date unit for Atom.
I'd have preferred to see both survive and do well, but that really hasn't been the way the text editor space seems to have worked. Editors that are conceptually awfully similar to one another tend to have one dominant player: TextMate (at least for Macs), then Sublime Text, then Atom, then very quickly Code. Given that Code and Atom are probably the closest of any two in that list, this just isn't that surprising.
Atom still had a healthy number of active contributors (presumably most of them were from GitHub) making improvements to the product on a daily basis to make it a perfectly viable tool for the people who chose to use it (and despite the much smaller developer base they continued to innovate with projects like xray and tree-sitter)... That is until the Microsoft acquisition happened.
Before anyone jumps in with the causation vs correlation argument, I think any reasonable person looking at the evidence would agree that the timing is convenient enough to make it highly unlikely to have been a coincidence, especially considering that most of those contributions were from employees at GitHub who were _getting paid to work on Atom_, so the only reasonable explanation for the contributions to stop abruptly within a month is that they _stopped getting paid to work on Atom_.
To add insult to injury they even had the audacity to claim they wouldn't do exactly what they did. That is the crux of my issue with how they handled this acquisition.
But the words of the linked Reddit comment from Nat Friedman were "we will continue to develop and support both Atom and VS Code going forward"; that's a true statement today. Atom is currently being developed and supported. That's a case of adhering to the letter of the statement rather than the spirit, I know. But that circles around to the problem of VSCode's rapid ascent in mindshare -- if your company ends up owning two very similar editors and they both have roughly equal downloads and community interest, you might try to support both equally. But if one of them has orders of magnitude more downloads and community interest than the other, you're going to focus your efforts on the popular one.
It's quite possible that this was just a random side-effect from a shift in focus, instead of a planned sabotage.
I was an user of Atom and later switched to VSCode. It took me few months of weighting all the options before I made the switch. That's how much I love Microsoft -- Very little.
Don't know if they got it fixed, but there was a design flaw in Atom: Bug inside some Atom plugin (`linter-ui-default` is one of it if my memory is correct) can reset the entire Atom into it's default setting, and it happens randomly (See link 1, 2 and 3).
This problem pisses me off so much and so many times. The last time it happened, I accidentally deleted my backup configuration `config.cson` when trying to recover the setting. Yes, it is technically my fault, but no, really, it is not. So, after seeing all my life flashed before my eyes, I decided to stop living ... with Atom, I had enough.
VSCode is generally a better editor when compare to Atom. I mean, VSCode has it own issues, sure. But for me, so far those issues are mild and usually got fixed quickly.
3: https://discuss.atom.io/t/atom-keeps-losing-settings/61617 (This one was in 2018 while the other two was in 2017)
It's possible that one of the linter providers had that issue, and since Linter providers are only called by the linter package, they wouldn't exhibit the issue on their own. It's not uncommon to have issues that seem like it's the linter's fault since all of the providers do nothing and seem harmless unless invoked by the linter package.
I would've helped to debug this, had somebody pinged me on any of the issues. Oh well :)
So maybe it's not a bug of `linter-ui-default` after all. Sorry dear innocent man, my judgement is not always on point :)
Lack of delivery killed Atom, not Microsoft.
I don't think so. When VS Code came out my reaction was "Wow! It's like a 1.0 version of Atom!" I.e. an electron (or similar) based editor that works, whereas atom always seemed like a beta release. I tried to use atom a bit but it came with little out of the box and the plugin ecosystem was a complete mess. I filed an issue asking if obsolete/dead plugins could be somehow removed from the plugin repository, but nothing came of it.
Atom wasn't killed, it died on its own.
What need does Atom fill that VSCode doesn't?
what is EEE?
> "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" (EEE), also known as "embrace, extend, and exterminate",is a phrase that the U.S. Department of Justice found was used internally by Microsoft to describe its strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences in order to strongly disadvantage its competitors.
The initial capabilities look similar and circle really needs a competitor with how flaky their service has recently been.
For someone who's not a pro in using CIs, it's been much easier to use than CircleCI. I never have to spend more than 20 or 30 minutes fiddling with Actions to make it actually work.
This for me is the biggest contribution to open source: normal people like me (who don't want to get too familiar with proprietary or overengineered CI tech) will be able to have CIs for pretty much ALL their projects.
If they did choose to EEE, this makes it more likely, not less.
Free in "freedom of speech" is the ability to say anything you want.
Your choice of free means cost.
So you're free to speak, but the speech itself isn't free.
Freedom of speech is by definition exactly this: free of consequences.
Right. It’s freedom of consequences from a specific entity, the government, not freedom from consequences in general.
Re 2: No. It's just the usual implementation.
So by your definition freedom of speech cannot exist, or you need to refine your meaning of "concequences". That refined meaning is accepted as conceqences from the government.
Any other meaning is senseless because people are free agents and may respond to your speech in any way they feel fit.
Your employer or society in general absolutely can via the consequences of what you say. If you are making your employer look bad then they can and should be able to get rid of you.
If society decides they don't like you because of what you say and choose not to associate with you or use your business than that also feels fair enough.
Why does NPM need to be funded as a commercial entity at all? What other open source library has a private company running its package manager? This one still boggles my mind.
- the Java/Kotlin/Scala ecosystem is based around maven central, which is run by Sonatype, Inc.
- Go modules are hosted by Google. Previously, most libraries were hosted on Github
- Rust's crate index is on Github
- The Docker/Moby registry is run by Docker, Inc. (though that might be a stretch for "package manager" :))
Note that the crates.io index is just a single git repo that holds JSON metadata about each crate: https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io-index . The actual code found on crates.io is hosted on S3. The index is an important part of the system, but there's nothing tying it to Github specifically.
Some libraries aren't hosted on Maven Central actually, so it's not uncommon to see instructions for adding extra resolvers to your build config.
If MC goes away as it exists today, the Java Ecosystem will take a huge hit as almost every open source project would stop building in CICD environments from the get-go.
Not sure how APT works in the linux community can really work for anyone else, but definitely worth a shot for sure.
Not many non-commercial entities can afford that.
- Microsoft is a leading sponsor of open source?
- In fact, .NET is open source now and runs on Linux?
- Microsoft bought Github, then NPM... and the community is celebrating both of those things??
- The guy from the apprentice is what?
I don't think you could honestly say the community celebrated both of those things.
Ruby Gems, PHP composer, PIP, etc. would all like a word with you....
The fact that there's a bunch of critical infra run on a precarious volunteer shoestring is not a good thing.
I don’t know, so I have to ask, what’s the metric here?
As at Oct. 2018, the top 12 npm packages  were already doing more than 0.5 billion downloads a month. Granted, popularity has waned for a few of those top packages due to deprecation or new language features, for instance.
NPM’s announcement about the acquisition  provides up-to-date numbers:
“Today, npm serves over 1.3 million packages to roughly 12 million developers, who download these things 75 billion times a month ...”
The acquisition can be a good outcome for the current situation without it being the ideal state of things.
Would yo prefer npm infrastructure to be maintained and developed by the lowest-paid programmers they could hire?
Linux repos take the alternative approach to try to get as many mirrors as possible so it can remain free.
Microsoft did not buy npm to help it become free. Believe. They bought it because they rekon they can make buck out of it.
That buck comes from somewhere.
Nodejs going to the Linux foundation was good news.
Microsoft buying Npm is bad news.
It probably isn't going to 20x VC money, but it sounds like it would be profitable to run as a business.
"2fa" sounds bad. That is clearly marketing bs for linking your npm account to a MS account with more personal info attached.
Ease of publishing will be the first thing to go.
Then the fun will disappear with MS as owner, like when Oracle bought Java.
Happy to be a rustacean.
And they will ask you, under the guise of 2fa, to confirm thier suspicions.
And $7 a month gets plently of new upgrade options offered.
All talk of mirrors gets brushed under the carpet.
Microsoft pwn all nodejs code except core and those savvy enough to spot this coming and distribute via debian repos.
I'm not sure that's an improvement in any way whatsoever.
MS? Not even a chance. What percent do you think of their business is actually government, beyond buying licenses just like nearly every other corporation on the planet.
what does that mean? That Microsoft works for the NSA or something?
Why I think this: private or volunteer models are unsustainable in the long run owing to funding uncertainties or conflicts of interest between stakeholders. Utilities that support the bulk of our technical infrastructure should be secured by public interests. Governments can keep things free.
- "Governments are inefficient". Depends on the area. The government tends to be inefficient in handling areas with direct consumer benefit, but less so in dealing with consortiums or private entities. Since private entities are the primary mainstream users of packages, I don't think government will be too slow on this front.
- "Governments will be malicious". This I don't doubt, but the solution for that is building better trust mechanisms rather than keeping a practical solution at bay, and for software at least such trust mechanisms are tenable e.g. see the CNCF's Falcon project.
That would work for Npm.
Npm has enough problems that its worth running your own mirror for business continuity.
Microsoft are likely to make breaking changes immediatly.
And risk-averse businesses do already.
And we're yet to hear of any negative impact of their Github acquisition (afaik - correct me if wrong).
Those are great until they're not. It's why it's called "bait and switch".
> And we're yet to hear of any negative impact of their Github acquisition (afaik - correct me if wrong).
ANY?! Heh, do a quick search just on HN and you'll find it pretty quickly.
> I'm legitimately curious as my use of GitHub hasn't led me to notice any change
Nor I. That's not that point.
For the record, I think Microsoft has done wonderfully for the dev community in the last 10 years. I don't see any reason that they are going to "f it up", but big businesses get desperate when environments change and profits get impacted (look no further than what Oracle is doing). Microsoft is not immune to that.
Next you'll call them Micro$oft. Come on now.
If it does micro$oft will just buy the world out from under them.
These are well-documented facts that have been widely reported on in the mass media. You can find links to specific articles on my blog in the recent article about Microsoft and GitHub, if you wish to learn specifics.
The kids are in there right now, as I write to you.
Whether or not Microsoft's provisioning of services to the government is "legal" or not is not particularly relevant to the thread, but it is interesting that you bring it up, presumably as a defense of their behavior.
Again: This is not a partisan thing. At all. Your attempt to reduce it to such is inaccurate (and, tbqf, off-topic for the thread about Microsoft-the-corporation, as well as off-topic for HN).
I'm a naturalized immigrant. I've been in far worse places than America. I suggest you visit CBP and ICE. Talk to the agents. Visit the border. See the shelters. View the damage done by criminals who prey on these people and find out how much the agents do to help them while risking their lives fighting cartels and traffickers.
Like I said, America is far softer with borders than other nations. Crossing illegally brings enforcement and penalties. I'm not sure why this is so controversial, or why protest against govt organizations is done by proxy of software companies.
What you are talking about is Right-wing politics, even if they are extremely far to the left of your -and the majority of peoples political view -in the USA. Both parties in the US are on the right. This isn't Reddit where the state of US politics is the default norm when it differs from most of planet earth. Though HN is quickly getting there.
ICE are the goons operating everywhere (i. e. not tied to the border) rounding up "suspected illegal immigrants".
Because it isn't exactly hard to find illegal immigrants, and their charter allows them to control people without objective cause, ICE gets to arbitrarily decide whom to harass.
It's the real-life version of the perennial fear of civil libertarians that too many criminal laws will just lead to any one of us being arrested whenever it happens to be convenient for whoever is currently in power.
It isn't going to end illegal immigration, nor curtail it to any significant degree. It just serves to keep a large segment of the people who see every day in a constant state of fear, unable to (for example) seek protection from crime or exploitation for fear of being deported.
As for the rest of your comment, this is the far-left extremist position that I cited in my first post. There's no good faith discussion to be had here.
No, it's the enforcement arm for immigration and customs, the former of which is people who are living in the US despite not being US citizens. Enforcement of people (and goods) crossing the border is the Border Patrol and it's parent organization Customs and Border Protection.
There's not much controversy over the people who cross illegally but stay temporarily and close to the border. Those are just traffickers and cartels.
Also detainment centers are not cages but fenced areas with free movement inside where people receive food, shelter, healthcare, entertainment, schooling and legal services paid for by US taxpayers while their cases are processed. Detainees are free to deport themselves at any time. This is more accommodating than pretty much every other developed nation.
The fact that it is open source and popular is not sufficient on its own. It had to be forked (vscodium) to show basic respect for the user’s privacy and system resources.
This is such an extreme & pretentious viewpoint. Microsoft knowing that I have VS Code installed & getting a report when it crashes is not in mine, or really any normal developer's threat landscape.
> This is not a fork. This is a repository of scripts to automatically build Microsoft's `vscode` repository into freely-licensed binaries with a community-driven default configuration.
So it "furthers my intended point".
It’s builds released by Microsoft that have all of their specific stuff added in.
Assume the best all you like. Microsoft are spying on you and can lock you out of their ecosystem for any reason. When that ecosystem includes critical public infrastructure, there is a problem.
The only "sane" response to this is to smile at the MS employees who tell you how much they love Open Source and to use absolutely any other platform.
I understand the concern about MS business practices, but I don't think it applies to environment where transactions (as in, importing someone's package or submitting a pull request to it) don't involve any contracts or money.
For some examples: RMS being a douchebag has nothing to do with the usefulness of gdb, nor can that circumstance affect the utility in any imaginable scenario.
Microsoft setting censorship policies (aka ToS) on a website they own and control directly affects the utility of npm/yarn/clients. Their website, their rules.
VS Code has had to fork to remove the unethical spyware portions within it placed there by Microsoft:
I realize this is just pure anecdata and not a legitimately researched observation, but I don't know a single dev in real life who either switched away from Github or VSCode due to those concerns, despite having a wide variety of dev friends from all kinds of backgrounds, including big tech devs, non-tech company devs, fully remote devs, self-taught devs, small startup devs, outside of the US devs, freelancer devs, etc.
"When we [Microsoft] build Visual Studio Code, we do exactly this. We clone the vscode repository, we lay down a customized product.json that has Microsoft specific functionality (telemetry, gallery, logo, etc.), and then produce a build that we release under our license."
"When you clone and build from the vscode repo, none of these endpoints are configured in the default product.json. Therefore, you generate a "clean" build, without the Microsoft customizations, which is by default licensed under the MIT license"
When a certain build configuration enables major spyware features, and that is the build configuration for the released version by the first party, and another build configuration (that is not released by the first party) disables those major spyware features, the distinction between a fork/patch and a "different build configuration" becomes semantically meaningless.
It's a fork, regardless of how they care to present it. The result of the build configuration is embedded in the release. Consider it a "binary fork" if you don't like considering json "source code".
Microsoft and their allies make the world a lot worse for a lot of people. They’re the number one distributor of spyware in the world!
npm i some-package username/repo#branchName
npm install username/repo#semver:^1.2.3
With NPM acquired by GitHub, I can imagine them "filling in some steps" by leveraging the fairly new Actions feature, so that repos can provide built artifacts, the same ones as published on NPM. The deeper integration will be an interesting development to watch.
But, you know, we've had decades of companies whose 'business model' is just their exit strategy...
That's generally not a good place to be.
'small business' is only the equilibrium in sectors that can't increase aggregate output by growing or capital investment like say, the restaurant industry.
Regarding "trace a change from a GitHub pull request to the npm package version that fixed it" will there be an API to add a source in case the change was made outside of GitHub? Although I recognize that the vast majority of changes to npm packages happen on GitHub.
But I could have this not right?
It has been confusing for a variety of reasons.
And I think there are mixed reviews with how well it's going overall, especially the RubyTogether part.
We think Git(Lab|Hub) will become the two most popular solutions and we look forward to this competition https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/leadership/biggest-risks/#...
I think the companies that should be nervous are ones that have only one stage or ones that have multiple stages but as a suite of applications instead of a single application https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/single-application... There are a lot of these https://about.gitlab.com/devops-tools/
I wish Gitlab would get over this passive-aggressive negging of GitHub.
I would squirm seeing something like that among any two competing companies. But it takes a strange configuration of overcompensating an inferiority complex to use it for the specific case of one company starting out as an explicit clone of another, to then lord any small feature the original company may have followed over them.
This isn't the first time. I've seen it dozens of times, and I don't even specifically care about these two companies.
Somehow, you took this explanation of why they aren't worried about this and turned it into a passive-aggressive stance..
GitHub is now very much focused on the end to end life cycle now that they have "GitHub One".