Github about to be Miscrosofted?

[LAwLz]

45 minutes ago, jj9987 said:

In addition to those, Microsoft has given us TypeScript, PowerShell and Linux Subsystem in Windows, all of these were happily accepted and are widely used.

 

Microsoft has been actively using GitHub for their FOSS software for long time now. I feel this is way overhyped and people are more concerned than necessary.

Microsoft has a history spanning 20 or so years where they have literally been found guilty in court for spreading FUD, lying and using anti-competitive methods to kill of anything they see as a threat, on top of all the times they have successfully done it without a court punishing them (look up successful EEE mentioned above, the history of the OOXML, and many more).

 

Sorry, but a handful of seemingly nice acts in the last couple of years (which actually just benefits Microsoft themselves, not their competitors) does not make up for the decades of abuse. 

 

 

Again, if you or anyone else gives Microsoft even the slight benefit of the doubt, then you either haven't looked at the companies history or you're extremely naive. The company is literally a known criminal which has been found guilty for a lot of crimes in their attempts to harm competitors and users.

[Drak3]

On 6/2/2018 at 12:50 PM, schwellmo92 said:

Why is everyone hating on Microsoft? They’ve very much pro OSS these days, check out their Microsoft and Xamarin pages on Github, there’s 2000 repositories there.

Because outside observers declair Microsoft as Devil incarnate based on the outsider looking in version of history they're familiar with.

[D13H4RD]

48 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Again, if you or anyone else gives Microsoft even the slight benefit of the doubt, then you either haven't looked at the companies history or you're extremely naive. The company is literally a known criminal which has been found guilty for a lot of crimes in their attempts to harm competitors and users.

The same can be said for many corporations, really.

 

Monsanto, anyone?

[TechyBen]

16 hours ago, AlexGoesHigh said:

Oh boy it looks they actually did buy Github

 www.theverge.com/2018/6/3/17422752/microsoft-github-acquisition-rumors

 

Beside people jumping ship simply because of MS owning Github, I wonder if Amazon, Google, and others are going to still use the service since its owned by a main rival now.

Now can we panic?

[Insert meme pictures here... but just Google it... that's how I feel!!!]

[TechyBen]

You don't pay that much to keep something "the same".

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

You don't pay that much to keep something "the same".

You do if it generates money and you've got the structure to upscale it.

[LAwLz]

55 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Because outside observers declair Microsoft as Devil incarnate based on the outsider looking in version of history they're familiar with.

You make it sound like that is an inaccurate version of history, which it isn't.

Again, Microsoft has been found, by courts of law, to have at several points used EEE, spread FUD, and other illegal tactics to kill competitors (mostly free and open source competitors).

There are two ways of looking at this.

1) You for some reason give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume they won't do anything bad with Github. Why would you do this? No idea. It is at the very least not a decision based on historical evidence though. 

2) You try and avoid risk by abandoning Github, because if history is any indicator this might lead to something very bad, such as Microsoft killing git in favor of their own proprietary solutions.

[infamoustrey]

Quote

Most importantly, we recognize the responsibility we take on with this agreement. We are committed to being stewards of the GitHub community, which will retain its developer-first ethos, operate independently and remain an open platform. We will always listen to developer feedback and invest in both fundamentals and new capabilities.

- Satya Nadella - Chief Executive Officer, Microsoft

It seems as though the GitHub team will still be in charge of operating, with just a focus on integrating with MS's enterprise services. I'm skeptically optimistic.

[GoodBytes]

Well, MS purchased GitHub for a small sum of 7.5 billions dollars.

Pocket lint change

 

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/4/17422788/microsoft-github-acquisition-official-deal

[schwellmo92]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

You make it sound like that is an inaccurate version of history, which it isn't.

Again, Microsoft has been found, by courts of law, to have at several points used EEE, spread FUD, and other illegal tactics to kill competitors (mostly free and open source competitors).

There are two ways of looking at this.

1) You for some reason give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume they won't do anything bad with Github. Why would you do this? No idea. It is at the very least not a decision based on historical evidence though. 

2) You try and avoid risk by abandoning Github, because if history is any indicator this might lead to something very bad, such as Microsoft killing git in favor of their own proprietary solutions.

The same can be said for every company that has ever existed. There's a fine line between sabotage and maintaining a competitive advantage, some people see it one way and others see it the other way.

 

I personally have had a lot to do with the Microsoft ecosystem and spoke to quite a few employees, MVPs and people who know people over the last few years, they have come a long way from where they used to be in regards to OSS and I have no doubt in my mind that their intentions are pure. Talented individuals wouldn't work for Microsoft if they were this neo-nezo anti-oss company, they've come to the realisation that OSS is good for everyone.

[grimreeper132]

How long till you can download stuff from Github through the Microsoft Store??? 

[Cheezdoodlez]

Time will tell how Microsoft will treat github. Personally I'm skeptical to a positive future for the platform. 

 

Gitlab has seen a 10x increase in daily new repository apparently and my guess it will increase over the coming week. Gnome, a pretty big player in the FOSS/Linux scene, moved all their stuff over to gitlab. Will be interesting to see how many other big players will follow.

[GoodBytes]

31 minutes ago, Cheezdoodlez said:

Time will tell how Microsoft will treat github. Personally I'm skeptical to a positive future for the platform. 

 

Gitlab has seen a 10x increase in daily new repository apparently and my guess it will increase over the coming week. Gnome, a pretty big player in the FOSS/Linux scene, moved all their stuff over to gitlab. Will be interesting to see how many other big players will follow.

GitHub is not that great, in reality, but offers good enterprise support. Microsoft has most, if not all, it's stuff in GitHub, so I expect it to treat it well.

[Drak3]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Again, Microsoft has been found, by courts of law, to have at several points used EEE, spread FUD, and other illegal tactics to kill competitors (mostly free and open source competitors).

Don't care about the findings of the courts of law. Court doesn't care about facts, it cares about evidense and how it's presented.

 

And the whole "killing competitors" thing is a load. They were groups and companies that couldn't cut it. Microsoft cut the throats of those already bleeding to death and they salvaged what they could.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, schwellmo92 said:

The same can be said for every company that has ever existed. 

1) That is completely false. There are several companies that have not been caught breaking the law several times in order to harm competitors and users. Maybe most of the big ones has, but that does not mean all companies do.

2) Who the hell cares if others are doing it too? That doesn't justify anything. I seriously do not understand how anyone can even remotely think this is a valid argument. Person 1 doing something horrible does not mean mean it OK for person 2 to do the same thing. They are both terrible if they both do it, and they both deserve to be criticized. In this thread we're talking about Microsoft, so I will criticize Microsoft for all the terrible things they have done.

 

 

1 hour ago, schwellmo92 said:

There's a fine line between sabotage and maintaining a competitive advantage, some people see it one way and others see it the other way.

And in the case of Microsoft, courts have at several occasions found them guilty of breaking the law. There really is no way you can argue around this.

Here is a direct quote from one of Microsoft's internal documents. This is taken from court document:

Quote

OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.

 

There have been plenty of documents from Microsoft showing that they don't just want to maintain a competitive advantage. They have time and time again deliberately sabotaged things which they have seen as threats.

 

 

1 hour ago, schwellmo92 said:

I have no doubt in my mind that their intentions are pure.

Then you are naive.

I mean, what are you basing that opinion on? It certainly isn't historical evidence. You're basing that on "they seem nice to me", and that's pretty much it. Maybe some half-assed open source PR moves too like making dot.net partially open source, but conveniently leaving out all the things which would actually benefit for example GNU/Linux (such as the GUI frameworks).

 

1 hour ago, schwellmo92 said:

Talented individuals wouldn't work for Microsoft if they were this neo-nezo anti-oss company, they've come to the realisation that OSS is good for everyone.

You got to be kidding. This level of nativity is incredible.

You honestly believe that all people who can program operate entirely on morals and ethics which would not allow them to do things which would benefit the company they work for, but harm competitors? I strongly recommend you pick up a history book if you truly think that is the case. Not even a history book about computers. Any history book.

 

Also, they have not realized that OSS is good for everyone, because it isn't. It isn't good for Microsoft which has based their entire business on selling proprietary software and solutions. Hell, they haven't even adopted the open documents format they themselves bribed into becoming a standard.

 

Can you give me some examples of Microsoft actually adopting FOSS on some of their core products? And I don't mean "they made a compatibility layer for Ubuntu in Windows" because that only benefits themselves, not the FOSS community.

 

 

3 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

GitHub is not that great, in reality, but offers good enterprise support. Microsoft has most, if not all, it's stuff in GitHub, so I expect it to treat it well.

How is Github not great?

[Okjoek]

Oooh shit.

[LAwLz]

10 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Don't care about the findings of the courts of law. Court doesn't care about facts, it cares about evidense and how it's presented.

 

And the whole "killing competitors" thing is a load. They were groups and companies that couldn't cut it. Microsoft cut the throats of those already bleeding to death and they salvaged what they could.

I am honestly baffled that you are so ignorant about this.

Serious question, do you work for Microsoft? I don't understand why else you would be lying like this.

 

Explain to me how Netscape were "bleeding to death".

Explain to me how ODF was "bleeding to death".

Explain to me how Java was "bleeding to death" (managed to survive by suing Microsoft several times).

Explain to me how LDAP was "bleeding to death".

Explain to me how AOL's IM protocol was "bleeding to death".

 

And I want you to give me historically accurate timelines for these things, how they started to slip BEFORE Microsoft used EEE on them.

The entire reason why they were bleeding to death was because Microsoft stabbed them. You're trying to make murders seem like an act of kindness.

[schwellmo92]

15 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Can you give me some examples of Microsoft actually adopting FOSS on some of their core products? And I don't mean "they made a compatibility layer for Ubuntu in Windows" because that only benefits themselves, not the FOSS community.

https://opensource.microsoft.com/

 

https://www.infoworld.com/article/3253948/open-source-tools/who-really-contributes-to-open-source.html

[LAwLz]

6 minutes ago, schwellmo92 said:

https://opensource.microsoft.com/

 

https://www.infoworld.com/article/3253948/open-source-tools/who-really-contributes-to-open-source.html

I don't want you to link marketing material from Microsoft. I want you to post examples with your own words, which of their core products they have open sourced and how it has helped the FOSS community (not just Microsoft themselves).

[GoodBytes]

29 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

How is Github not great?

Well, you have: Restrictions on file size, you don't have a bug tracking system like BitBucket (as BitBucket integrated JIRA), it is difficult to know who does what, when branching, GUI experience needs work compared to what is available.

[suicidalfranco]

You don't spend 7.5 billion dollars and leave things as is. Things will change, and they will change to MS own benefit.

[LAwLz]

30 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Well, you have: Restrictions on file size, you don't have a bug tracking system like BitBucket (as BitBucket integrated JIRA), it is difficult to know who does what, when branching, GUI experience needs work compared to what is available.

OK fair points. I mean, the file size limits are a nonissue for 99.9% of users, a full blown bug tracking system would be nice but it has the issues threads which is "good enough" for most, and as far as the UI goes I think that mostly comes down to personal preferences.

You're comparing a free tool (Github) vs a subscription based one though (Bitbucket has a free but very limited version). It's not really fair.

[Cheezdoodlez]

Just now, LAwLz said:

OK fair points. I mean, the file size limits are a nonissue for 99.9% of users, a full blown bug tracking system would be nice but it has the issues threads which is "good enough" for most, and as far as the UI goes I think that mostly comes down to personal preferences.

You're comparing a free tool (Github) vs a subscription based one though (Bitbucket has a free but very limited version). It's not really fair.

Gitlab also have a better bug tracking and who does what system than github to be fair. Not to mention integrated CI/CD 

[matrix07012]

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, firelighter487 said:

sure, but they could do what Netflix does. they support Linux, but don't offer technical support for it. and i know that sounds weird for MS to do, but to me it would make sense.. 

They could do a lot of things.  But right now there are several logical reasons they haven't invested resources into it. that might change in the future, who knows.

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

They have tried to control FOSS several times in the past. You should not, under any circumstance, give them the benefit of a doubt.

 

One theory right now is that they might try and use EEE. They already have their own "git virtual file system" which uses Microsoft's own extensions to the git protocol. It would be a pretty simple plan.

1) Buy github.

2) Push GVFS through github until it becomes an integral part of the workflow for people.

3) Remove support for regular git.

4) A bunch of companies are now stuck with using Microsoft software.

 

This would not be uncharacteristic of Microsoft, and they already have some of the things necessary in place.

Source (emphasis is mine):

 

 

The name has not changed.

OSS = Open source software. Any program where the source code can be looked at. That's it. 

FOSS = Free and Open Source Software. In order to be FOSS, the program has to be open source, but it ALSO needs to be what's called "free". Free in this case refers to:

0) Run the program however you want.

1) Freedom to study and make changes to the program.

2) Redistribute the program.

3) Make changes and redistribute those changes.

 

FLOSS = Just another term for FOSS which has been around since 2001 now. It's neither new nor that commonly used.

Lots of theories.  I judge every case on it's own merits. If you want to assume this is the end of github and that MS are willing to spend $7.5B to shutdown what essentially can't be killed (Linux and OSS are here to stay and MS know it) then you have rocks in your head.

 

8 hours ago, TechyBen said:

You don't pay that much to keep something "the same".

But you don't change what isn't broken.  Github had financial issues, not technical ones.

 

6 hours ago, schwellmo92 said:

The same can be said for every company that has ever existed. There's a fine line between sabotage and maintaining a competitive advantage, some people see it one way and others see it the other way.

 

I personally have had a lot to do with the Microsoft ecosystem and spoke to quite a few employees, MVPs and people who know people over the last few years, they have come a long way from where they used to be in regards to OSS and I have no doubt in my mind that their intentions are pure. Talented individuals wouldn't work for Microsoft if they were this neo-nezo anti-oss company, they've come to the realisation that OSS is good for everyone.

I have been saying it over and over, OSS cannot be killed, it is the future of software.  Anyone who thinks MS is just trying to kill OSS is ignoring fact they have bought and invested in many things without the intention of sabotage.  And it is quite illogical to ignore that and the fact MS can make serious money from the OSS system.