Github about to be Miscrosofted?

[GoodBytes]

42 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

MS doesn't own the internet so... you know... not the same thing

Nice try though

MS doesn't own Git.

They only own GitHub

 

And this does not affect you in any shape or form unless you DIRECTLY use GitHub.

[suicidalfranco]

Just now, GoodBytes said:

MS doesn't own Git.

They only own GitHub

Atom was developed by Github...

[GoodBytes]

Just now, suicidalfranco said:

Atom was developed by Github...

Again, how does that affect you?

[suicidalfranco]

6 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Again, how does that affect you?

owned by MS

don't want my time or money to go to them

move to greener pastures

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

30 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

Atom was developed by Github...

So all of a sudden all versions of Atom are evil?

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

Paranoia is defined as irrational fear. There is nothing paranoid to suspect the worst from Microsoft in this situation, considering their history.

 

And the idea that "everything" MS does is the "worst" is irrational.  Somethings they do are good and somethings are just benign.  If you feel the need to uproot your entire work system and move to another platform simply because it became owned by MS and you don't like some of their past behavior then you are being irrational, you have no more proof that gitlabs isn't some data hungry malware factory that hasn't been caught out yet than you do MS is going to do something so nasty to make github unusable.

Quote

You wouldn't leave your baby with a convicted child molester, right? It's the same here. The trust that people might have had for Microsoft is long gone,

Clearly the trust you have is long gone, and all you have is trust. But many of us go case by case, because trust is has little to so with it.  MS is not a child molester, they are a company looking after their profits, and when you understand intention you understand threat.  The problem here is people don't understand the intention but still assume they understand the threat. Any company can do anything with the purchases they make, there is nothing special about MS that means their acquisitions are automatically with evil intent.  And don;t tell me you understand the intention because they did some dodgy things, every acquisition is done with different intentions and we don;t know the actual intent behind this one.

 

Quote

 

and they only have themselves to blame for that. You don't abuse a community for decades and then expect them to blindly trust you.

And no, it is not at all low. Again, I recommend you do a bit of reading if you honestly think that Microsoft has only done a few bad things towards the FOSS community. 

 

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Extermination in this case does not refer to Github itself. It refers to the open and standardized Git protocol. Microsoft already has a non-standard extension to the Git protocol. If they make that the standard for interacting with GitHub, they are in a position where they have a fair chance of killing standard Git in favor of their own implementation (which they control).

Quote

So to clarify. I do not think they will kill Github. I don't even necessarily think they will kill Git. This is what they would do if they had that intention though, and I think a lot of people feel the same way.

 

 

So this paragraph makes the one above it pointless then. You think they are trying to kill git but they aren't going to?

 

That's just Dancing around with words, either you are claiming they are trying to control OSS or they aren't.   I demonstrated how they can't change git because that is under GPL.  No one is forced to use any of MS extensions.   No one is forced to use github. There is literally very little MS can do to impact OSS, FOSS, FLOSS or git to the detriment of developers. 

you even said yourself:

 

Quote

You don't really lose anything from migrating to another service like GitLab, so it's better to be safe than sorry.

So you agree there is actually very little MS can do to harm git or OSS.  Which makes claims that they are intent on destroying something they cannot control pretty irrational.

 

Quote

 

Well, you keep calling people paranoid so I'd say that's ignoring all the shady things they have done.

Paranoia is irrational fear. Fears of things based on historical evidence is not irrational. 

 

Not been reading my posts have you?  I have said quite clearly several times that they have done shady things.  One of those posts was in direct response to you, but I see you ignored it so Here it is again:

 

Quote

nothing wrong with being skeptical about it, but some people have outright jumped into the paranoia bin  on little more information than MS (like all fucking companies) have not been entirely kosher.   And to be honest MS have made well over 200 acquisitions with only a handful falling foul on the ethical side if intentions. So if your bar for deciding it's bad is so low then I can only assume you panic with every acquisition by any company.

Pointing out when someone has an irrational fear is not the same as ignoring things.  How you even came to that conclusion baffles me.

Quote

Edit:

I find it interesting that so many pro-Microsoft users are attacking people who are moving their repos, calling them paranoid among other things. Yet they immediately jump to "you can just migrate to somewhere else" as an argument for why people should remain calm and stay on Github.

Sorry but you can't have it both ways. You can't attack people moving while at the same time saying moving is perfectly fine. Makes me wonder why some members are so adamant to make people stay on Github and their motives for posting about it...

 

 

I like the way you call people "pro-microsoft",  like somehow you have decided that because they have a different concept of judgment and analyzing situations that they must just be fanboys or irrational proponents.   you know people don;t have to condemn a company because 18 years ago they got caught using EEE and have traditional been opposed to a product that was actually competition at the time.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I see where they're coming from, but at the same time, how long are people going to hold grudges? Especially when said things probably happened before they even understood that downloading RAM wasn't really a thing.

Considering all the awful things Microsoft has done, it will take a very long time for them to regain any kind of trust outside of fanboys or ignorant people.

And no, they have done a ton of shady things fairly recently too. It's not just old stuff.

@Syntaxvgm did a pretty good job bringing up a small fraction of all the things Microsoft had done, some of which is as recent as this year:

On 6/3/2018 at 8:01 AM, Syntaxvgm said:

lol ok 

http://www.catb.org/esr/halloween/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samizdat%3a_And_Other_Issues_Regarding_the_'Source'_of_Open_Source_Code

 

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/

https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-profits-from-linux-patent-fud/

 

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/05/microsoft-235-patent-specific-patent-infringements-in-linux/

 

http://techrights.org/2010/10/14/msft-scorpion-and-the-tortoise/

http://techrights.org/2016/03/10/charm-offensives-distract/
^That 2016 one's great, covers MS literally taking existing things from Linux distros and patenting them in a fraudulent and abusive manner. 

 

Oh, I remember reading this one janurary of this year. 

http://techrights.org/2018/01/16/microsoft-uses-patent-trolls/

 

 

 

So yea I can probably just keep going and going really, but I tried to give a spread over the years. 

I would love to make a nice list of micrsoft patent trolling history, not just MS but all proxies as well. It's shit like this 

https://patents.google.com/patent/US5758352?oq=5%2c758%2c352

that's not even that bad in terms of what they get away with, I just like this one becuase literally Linus Torvalds himself helped invalidate it legally because, like normal, they took existing shit and patented it to attempt to troll competitors (in this case, Motorola) and foss solutions out of existence. 

 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Considering all the awful things Microsoft has done, it will take a very long time for them to regain any kind of trust outside of fanboys or ignorant people.

 

Way to insuklt people.  If you disagree with me you must be either ignorant or a fanboy.  I guess i nailed it in my last post.

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

And no, they have done a ton of shady things fairly recently too. It's not just old stuff.

@Syntaxvgm did a pretty good job bringing up a small fraction of all the things Microsoft had done, some of which is as recent as this year:

 

Yep, 8 links, 3 to articles about the same thing, one a blog with no substantiating evidence and 1 reference to a book.

 

The references to them using patent FUD over linux does not explain which patents or why. they are just blind accusations.  unless someone can show me why Samsung, Amazon et al are paying license fees to MS over patents that they shouldn't have to, then it is safe to assume we don't have enough information to claim they are not legitimate.

[suicidalfranco]

1 hour ago, M.Yurizaki said:

So all of a sudden all versions of Atom are evil?

exactly 

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

exactly

Out of curiosity, do you play games? And if so, which ones?

[suicidalfranco]

3 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Out of curiosity, do you play games? And if so, which ones?

warframe

path of exile

dirty bomb

 

inb4 all windows only:

wine, wine and wine. 

 

Wanna know also about non gaming related apps too?

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just now, suicidalfranco said:

warframe

path of exile

dirty bomb

 

inb4 all windows only:

wine, wine and wine. 

 

Wanna know also about non gaming related apps too?

Well I ask because Microsoft has bought out at least two companies whom had products developers use a lot of: Havok and Simplygon.

 

So I just wanted to know if your feelings would change.

[GoodBytes]

Aha, exactly what I thought. Google wanted to buy GitHub.

https://mspoweruser.com/google-too-wanted-to-buy-github-before-microsoft-snatched-it-up/

 

Considering that MS has a massive amount of personal projects inside, this explains everything. 

[Lent]

3 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

crap, completely forgot that Atom was a Github thing...

 

i guess it's time to buy sublime... Man so sad, will miss really miss it. Specially now that it was setup to fit my needs.

Microsoft makes a C++ compiler and is part of the ANSI committee that withholds the C++ standard, whoops. Guess you can't use Sublime Text either. Oh well, what a shame.

[Blademaster91]

15 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

By the same logic, me calling you ignorant is not an insult because you actually are.

Being vary of Microsoft is not irrational by the way. Like you said yourself, they have a history of doing shady things. Doing a very simple risk avoidance technique seems perfectly reasonable.

 

With all your pro-Microsoft posts, insults towards people migrating, and your attempts at calming people down seems to me like you're trying to convince people to stay.

Why else would you make those types of posts?

Accusing people of being "pro-microsoft" because they aren't making all kinds of assumptions and like minded opinions aren't insults? You're welcome to be wary but all the hate and ranting has taken this thread off topic while you've been ignoring all the contribution Microsoft has towards the open source community. If you have such so much hate for MS then stop using all of their software.

Would you rather Facebook,Google, or Amazon have bought GitHub? Microsoft isn't all to blame anyway, blame the owners of GitHub for selling out on their users.

[ItsMitch]

41 minutes ago, Sierra Fox said:

• Tesla and Elon Musk are not to be trusted because their cars catch fire and the autonomous mode kills people
•  

So many things wrong with this statement lmao it's baffling. 

[Syntaxvgm]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

The references to them using patent FUD over linux does not explain which patents or why. they are just blind accusations.  unless someone can show me why Samsung, Amazon et al are paying license fees to MS over patents that they shouldn't have to, then it is safe to assume we don't have enough information to claim they are not legitimate.

 

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Yep, 8 links, 3 to articles about the same thing, one a blog with no substantiating evidence and 1 reference to a book.

Considering all the awful things Microsoft has done, it will take a very long time for them to regain any kind of trust outside of fanboys or ignorant people.

And no, they have done a ton of shady things fairly recently too. It's not just old stuff.

@Syntaxvgm did a pretty good job bringing up a small fraction of all the things Microsoft had done, some of which is as recent as this year:

 

iirc the duplicates were about them continuing to do this. And no, it's not really a good sample. I should at one point compile everything I can find on it, with patent numbers to get a more fair picture. It does layout why foss supporters hate them though. And one of the links wasn't a book, it was literally a patent that MS used to have.

[LAwLz]

23 minutes ago, Sierra Fox said:

that's just like you're opinion man.

I thoroughly explained why the situations you gave as examples are very different from this.

Again, you try to compare a single occurrence vs years of systematic abuse. Surely you must understand how your examples are completely different from what is happening here.

 

23 minutes ago, Sierra Fox said:

i still dont fully understand the apprehensions some people have with Microsoft

If you are genuinely curious, I highly recommend looking at some of the links I quoted earlier. The Halloween documents and examples of EEE are good starting points, but also the history of the "browser wars". Here is a documentary about it. Those are good starting points but they just scratch the surface of all the bad things Microsoft has done. They have so many skeletons in their closet that the door has collapsed and a sea of bones is spewing out.

 

23 minutes ago, Sierra Fox said:

I look forward to agreeing with you on your opinions in other threads though

Likewise!

 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I really wish there was someway to articulate what you are doing here.  Your argument has gone from "MS are evil" to "you are ignorant because you disagree".

 

I am am no longer going to respond to posts that aren't on topic.

Well if I can commend you for something it has to be consistency. Your sole argument all through the thread (after people started migrating) has always been "you're paranoid!" Hey everybody, look at all the paranoid people! History is boring so let's all ignore it when speculating about future events!".

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Accusing people of being "pro-microsoft" because they aren't making all kinds of assumptions and like minded opinions aren't insults? You're welcome to be wary but all the hate and ranting has taken this thread off topic while you've been ignoring all the contribution Microsoft has towards the open source community.

Would you rather Facebook,Google, or Amazon have bought GitHub? Microsoft isn't all to blame anyway, blame the owners of GitHub for selling out on their users.

I am not calling people "pro-Microsoft" because they aren't making assumptions. I am calling some people "pro-Microsoft" because they are insulting others who are leaving the platform, and also some people who are ignoring historical evidence when speculating about future events.

 

I have not ignored the contributions Microsoft has made to the open source community. I actually asked for examples from someone but that user left the thread before giving me a proper answer (I asked for examples using his own words, and he replied with a link to PR material from Microsoft, mostly consisting of example code).

 

I think one of the problems with the examples people give are that the examples are entirely self-serving. Microsoft running some Ubuntu compatibility layer in Windows does not benefit anyone but Microsoft and their users. It's something they did to make Windows more appealing, hoping to take some marketshare away from GNU/Linux.

It's completely understandable why they did it too. Microsoft is a for-profit company after all, and making money comes first. All I am saying is that "they put Ubuntu in Windows" is a very bad example for "proving that Microsoft cares about FOSS".

 

Making Win32 open source would be a great example, if it happened. It wouldn't really benefit Microsoft, but it would benefit FOSS. It would be a selfless act, unlike the other example I just mentioned. That's the kind of examples I want. Selfless acts that does not benefit them (maybe even harms their bottom line), but they do it anyway because they want to help make the world a better place. That's what I believe FOSS is about.

[Mira Yurizaki]

8 minutes ago, SC2Mitch said:

So many things wrong with this statement lmao it's baffling. 

https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-self-driving-crash-california/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-crash-ntsb/u-s-opens-probe-into-fatal-tesla-crash-fire-in-california-idUSKBN1H32OT
https://electrek.co/2018/03/27/tesla-model-x-fatal-crash-ntsb-investigation-autopilot-fire/

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/2018/1/26/tesla-engineers-warn-model-3-batteries-could-catch-fire

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/tesla-was-autopilot-mode-utah-crash-driver-tells-police-n874136

https://jalopnik.com/two-years-on-a-father-is-still-fighting-tesla-over-aut-1823189786

I mean, Tesla shouldn't be calling "autopilot" mode "autopilot" if it still requires a great deal of human attention. But Tesla insists on calling it an "autopilot" mode.

[mrchow19910319]

next version of github just got leaked.

 

 

/s

 

[TechyBen]

14 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Aha, exactly what I thought. Google wanted to buy GitHub.

https://mspoweruser.com/google-too-wanted-to-buy-github-before-microsoft-snatched-it-up/

 

Considering that MS has a massive amount of personal projects inside, this explains everything. 

Yes. So it's MS covering their development costs by buying out the framework they were using.

 

[edit seems quotes got lost]

 

MS are putting telemetry and forced updates into their non-pro/corporate/datacenter products... so... they are currently adding telemetry to their products. Who do you think is moving off Github, paid or free customers?

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

I really wish there was someway to articulate what you are doing here.  Your argument has gone from "MS are evil" to "you are ignorant because you disagree".

 

I am am no longer going to respond to posts that aren't on topic.

 

 

 

Nope. Lawlz articulated their understanding and opinion well. Possibly better than you, as to the facts they observe. You were clear on your opinion though. You have the opinion MS will do nothing. Lawlz sees a repeating pattern and says they will migrate/expect others to.

 

As an example not MS, Apple constantly release products with fatal flaws which die within 2 years = some people don't buy their products because of this. However, you seem to claim "but the next one may not fail". That's fine... that's opinion though. Same as those buying something have an opinion not to. However, the past events are facts. Same here for MS.

 

Skype was free but losing money. Github has free services but losing money. MS purchased Linkdln for its customer portfolio. Presumably MS purchased Github just to protect their workflow system and production code from a Google takeover etc (competitor owning a service that has your major stock/IP is risky). So if they just do that, Github will stay exactly the same. Info we did not have before. However, it all depends on how much cash MS is willing to put in. If they just got the codebase then refloated the company, we would have little concerns (they'd move the Git repo in house and on their own servers, then sell the rest of the company off to Google... um... well... who else would not be a competitor they'd be happy to sell to?).

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Yes. So it's MS covering their development costs by buying out the framework they were using.

 

[edit seems quotes got lost]

 

MS are putting telemetry and forced updates into their non-pro/corporate/datacenter products... so... they are currently adding telemetry to their products. Who do you think is moving off Github, paid or free customers?

 

Nope. Lawlz articulated their understanding and opinion well. Possibly better than you, as to the facts they observe. You were clear on your opinion though. You have the opinion MS will do nothing. Lawlz sees a repeating pattern and says they will migrate/expect others to.

 

As an example not MS, Apple constantly release products with fatal flaws which die within 2 years = some people don't buy their products because of this. However, you seem to claim "but the next one may not fail". That's fine... that's opinion though. Same as those buying something have an opinion not to. However, the past events are facts. Same here for MS.

 

Skype was free but losing money. Github has free services but losing money. MS purchased Linkdln for its customer portfolio. Presumably MS purchased Github just to protect their workflow system and production code from a Google takeover etc (competitor owning a service that has your major stock/IP is risky). So if they just do that, Github will stay exactly the same. Info we did not have before. However, it all depends on how much cash MS is willing to put in. If they just got the codebase then refloated the company, we would have little concerns (they'd move the Git repo in house and on their own servers, then sell the rest of the company off to Google... um... well... who else would not be a competitor they'd be happy to sell to?).

I agree with nearly everything you said, except two things:

 

1. My discussion with Lawlz turned  into something else and I will not go there. It's not healthy for the thread.

 

2. the apple example is kinda true as an example of being weary buying another iphone.  However it doesn't really apply to MS because MS haven't screwed over every purchase they make. In fact there has been only a handful of examples raised from more than 200 Acquisitions.  Which would indicate, if we go on historical record, that they are more likely to do something with gihub other than burn or try to control git/OSS.    I would argue the apple analogy to be correct if over the last 100 product releases only 3 were dodgy.

 

Which is really my only point in all this,  If we look at ALL of MS's history (not just the bad stuff) and we look at ALL the reasons they would want to buy github.  Then claiming they did it to destroy OSS or git quite fast becomes a knee jerk response.  Because as you have articulated (quite well I might add) that there are many more reasons for the purchase (which I believe are more logical than those proposed by Lawlz and the others) .

[TechyBen]

Windows 10 autoupdates, Office Ribbons. Actual things that stop me (small sample size I know ) from using their products. Oh, and Skype. They broke Skype.

 

I use offline Google software. My online Google software works years after end of life (Android OS etc), and I avoid their messaging services (thankfully they dropped it like a leaf).

 

So based on experience, I would jump Github as an individual sooner rather than later, to avoid surprises. As a business? It'd depend entirely on the business. So. Well... no one in this thread is speaking in behalf of businesses except you. And no one is saying you are wrong in that case.

 

But I can tell you, Google/Apple would probably like to take out their Gits right this second (if they had any)... using an opponent's service (App store etc as you mentioned inthe other thread) is not the same as your opponent having your stuff. An example of this is EA or Ubisoft keeping some games off Steam, even though it'd make some money. Or Apple keeping some apps off Android, even though it'd make them some money.

 

Lawlz and others have valid points. Their opinion on the weighting of those points is different to you, and slightly to me too. But not invalid points.

[LAwLz]

45 minutes ago, mr moose said:

However it doesn't really apply to MS because MS haven't screwed over every purchase they make.

They have screwed over a lot of them though, and they have a very long history of doing terrible things, especially to the open source community.

It might not happen 100% of the time, but if something happens fairly often it would be foolish to not take it into consideration when making your decisions.

 

 

49 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Then claiming they did it to destroy OSS or git quite fast becomes a knee jerk response.

Who has claimed that? I certainly haven't.

[infamoustrey]

 

 

Everyone needs to calm down. If Microsoft goes evil on this then another better service will arise, but more than likely this will result in more good than bad.

 

Remember, its a free market.