Github Microsoft? :(

[jjdrost]

Is github already sold to Microsoft?

[Mira Yurizaki]

https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/17999562/microsoft-github-acquisition-approved-eu-antitrust

 

The EU approved of it, so it's pretty much a done deal.

[reniat]

What's the fear, exactly? I mean microsoft is not exactly my favorite company, but I can't really see them doing anything that would ruin github.

 

At worst, people will just make new stuff based on the github API, assuming they dont shut that down (which is HIGHLY unlikely)

[Dat Guy]

A giant monopolist is bought by a giant former monopolist. I actually doubt that anyone will notice.

[wasab]

Everyone can just go to gitbucket if GitHub goes downhill.

[Cruorzy]

Bitbucket or Gogs

[reniat]

11 minutes ago, Cruorzy said:

Bitbucket

ehh... We use crucible at work for code reviews, and I gotta say i'm not the biggest atlassian fan...

[Guest]

20 hours ago, wasab said:

Everyone can just go to gitbucket if GitHub goes downhill.

Well... you could always...

Make your own 

Spoiler

 

[AbsoluteFool]

I don't understand why people are so worried about Microsoft buying Github. Sure we all have our views on how Microsoft operates. But Github now have a company with money that can assure it being available for people and developers thqat use it. Github afterall is a just Git that Linus Torvalds made for the develoment of the Linux Kernel. However Microsoft could possibly screw up github the source for it is available for everyone. So if the worst should happen, Microsoft just flushed their money down the drain, not really my problem but it's the truth. lol

[Mira Yurizaki]

Also just because Microsoft now has access to all of these projects (which, to some degree, they've always had access to them), doesn't mean they can just take what people did willy nilly and go "lol, thanks for the source code, now booger off." That's tantamount to corporate amputation.

[vorticalbox]

18 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Also just because Microsoft now has access to all of these projects (which, to some degree, they've always had access to them), doesn't mean they can just take what people did willy nilly and go "lol, thanks for the source code, now booger off." That's tantamount to corporate amputation.

I believe they started adding pipe lines into azure, like code pipe lines in aws.

 

Push to master, build and test then deploy.

[Kamjam66xx]

On 10/20/2018 at 10:36 PM, jjdrost said:

Is github already sold to Microsoft?

I was searching for an "about github" post, because ive never used it but get the general idea. Does this mean any code someone puts on there can be stolen and used by microsoft?

[Dat Guy]

If you don't want Microsoft to use your code, you should not make it open source, dude. 

[Nocte]

12 hours ago, Kamjam66xx said:

Does this mean any code someone puts on there can be stolen and used by microsoft?

Any code you make open-source can be used by anyone. Not only Microsoft. That's the whole point of open-source... People can use your code, contribute to it, etc.

If you make your repo private then no, no one will see (and therefore use your code). But private repos require a premium account.

[mathijs727]

44 minutes ago, Nocte said:

Any code you make open-source can be used by anyone. Not only Microsoft. That's the whole point of open-source... People can use your code, contribute to it, etc.

If you make your repo private then no, no one will see (and therefore use your code). But private repos require a premium account.

Private repos do not require a premium account as of this week:

https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/07/github-free-users-now-get-unlimited-private-repositories/

[Mira Yurizaki]

13 hours ago, Kamjam66xx said:

I was searching for an "about github" post, because ive never used it but get the general idea. Does this mean any code someone puts on there can be stolen and used by microsoft?

If you license your source code with an open source one like BSD, GPL, or MIT, then yes, your code can be "stolen" by anyone. But the whole point of open sourcing your code is so anyone can see it either to learn from it, to find bugs, or to integrate useful chunks of that code into another project.

 

However, the license provides legal binding as to what someone can and cannot do with your code. MIT for instance is basically just "give credit where credit is due." GPL though, has more things in place to ensure the code and its forks remain open sourced and available.

 

If you want your code to be proprietary, you probably shouldn't be uploading to a cloud-based repo anyway unless you own it.

[Kamjam66xx]

1 hour ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

If you license your source code with an open source one like BSD, GPL, or MIT, then yes, your code can be "stolen" by anyone. But the whole point of open sourcing your code is so anyone can see it either to learn from it, to find bugs, or to integrate useful chunks of that code into another project.

 

However, the license provides legal binding as to what someone can and cannot do with your code. MIT for instance is basically just "give credit where credit is due." GPL though, has more things in place to ensure the code and its forks remain open sourced and available.

 

If you want your code to be proprietary, you probably shouldn't be uploading to a cloud-based repo anyway unless you own it.

ill have to learn more about github. Also... idk if it was MIT but some college has a lot of people publishing awesome case studies that you can learn a hell of a lot from. My worry was that i could make something and someone could basically take my work and make money off of it. 

 

again though, never used it and idk any of the legality of different things in the software engineering world yet tbh.

[Mira Yurizaki]

4 minutes ago, Kamjam66xx said:

My worry was that i could make something and someone could basically take my work and make money off of it.

I don't see a problem with someone making money off someone else's work as long as they don't take credit for doing it.

 

If you distill it and think about it, tech itself is built off other people's work that aren't getting royalties for implementing their ideas.

[Kamjam66xx]

14 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

I don't see a problem with someone making money off someone else's work as long as they don't take credit for doing it.

 

If you distill it and think about it, tech itself is built off other people's work that aren't getting royalties for implementing their ideas.

Ya i guess youre right. I just have a few ideas that im learning stuff for. once i create these pieces of software, i plan on selling it and dont want someone else doing the same thing with what ive made. 

 

So it peeked my curiosity.

[wasab]

I believe in copy left. I believe you can do whatever you want with my code as long as you let others do whatever they want with whatever you want with my code. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, Kamjam66xx said:

Ya i guess youre right. I just have a few ideas that im learning stuff for. once i create these pieces of software, i plan on selling it and dont want someone else doing the same thing with what ive made.

If you want to go that route, that's fine. But just remember that people could just black-box reverse engineer what your software is doing and create their own version.

[wasab]

24 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

If you want to go that route, that's fine. But just remember that people could just black-box reverse engineer what your software is doing and create their own version.

Haha, I am an obfuscation contest champion. By the time they reverse engineering a single line of code, I would be on the ntext two versions already. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, wasab said:

Haha, I am an obfuscation contest champion. By the time they reverse engineering a single line of code, I would be on the ntext two versions already. 

People don't have to read source code to figure out how something works. Given enough inputs and outputs, people can find a relationship between the two to derive a general pattern.

 

For example, the Allies didn't break the Enigma encryption because of the general weakness of the codec (there are weaknesses, but none of them would ease the difficulty of brute forcing it to practical levels for the technology of the time), but because of poor operational procedures in using it.

[wasab]

3 hours ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

People don't have to read source code to figure out how something works. Given enough inputs and outputs, people can find a relationship between the two to derive a general pattern.

 

For example, the Allies didn't break the Enigma encryption because of the general weakness of the codec (there are weaknesses, but none of them would ease the difficulty of brute forcing it to practical levels for the technology of the time), but because of poor operational procedures in using it.

Try figuring out what this does then. 

https://github.com/sobolevn/python-code-disasters/blob/master/obfuscation/__init__.py

Source code is barely for me to read and I can't even figure it out. 

[Kamjam66xx]

2 minutes ago, wasab said:

Try figuring out what this does then. 

https://github.com/sobolevn/python-code-disasters/blob/master/obfuscation/__init__.py

Source code is barely for me to read and I can't even figure it out. 

controls the coolant levels in the flux capacitor, while also monitoring power so that we dont excede 1 jiggerwatt and fry the time-drive.