If Microsoft acquires GitHub, will you:
Displaying poll results.19228 total votes.
If Microsoft acquires GitHub, will you:
"People should have access to the data which you have about them. There should be a process for them to challenge any inaccuracies." -- Arthur Miller
Not a dev (Score:2)
I am neutral about Github.
However, the simple fact that X acquired Y shouldn't be a driving factor in whether I use it or not, unless I have a deep, deep hatred on X, which requires a lot more than "they're scum".
Re: Not a dev (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, I don't trust any company out there.
Let's stop and think about Github for a second. They sold YOUR trust. Microsoft didn't perform a hostile takeover, Github might just as well have said "no".
So I agree it sucks for Github to be acquired by Microsoft, but at the same time I am aware it takes two to dance, and you're all only talking about one. Don't yell "rape" when Github raised its skirt and spread its legs wide.
Re: (Score:2)
Github was losing money. They needed someone to take over and be willing to shake up the business, which they weren't.
That is the real problem I have with the takeover, it doesn't matter who took over, they need to change some things we are not going to like to make it profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
GitHub did explicitly say "Yes".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not a dev (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. I think the missing part here is that there is no need to trust Microsoft at here in order to adopt a "wait and see" approach. If they start imposing any kind of policy/behavior/changes that negatively impact my use of GitHub then I can migrate at that point.
Let's see what things we are not trusting them for:
In all seriousness though, what in the world do we need to trust them for? They run it, if I don't like it, I'll move then. They're just a dumb data store anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hosting private repo w/o "someone else's computer" (Score:2)
If you want it to be truly private, don't put it on someone else's computer.
Except a virtual private server running GitLab or Gitea or whatever else is also technically "someone else's computer." What solution do you recommend for a team to host a private repository accessible through the Internet to team members and only team members?
How much does colocation cost? (Score:2)
Run your own server - on your own hardware. [...] To make it accessible on the Internet, you expose it on the Internet. Simple as that.
Would this server be on your premises or colocated in a data center? It might not be practical to expose a server on your premises to the Internet if your ISP puts the connection to your premises behind carrier-grade network address translation [wikipedia.org], with a whole neighborhood behind one IP.
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of on-premises is the cost of a dedicated IP for your premises as opposed to one behind NAT, and that can still prove substantial.
It could have been worse: Oracle (Score:2)
Do you trust a company that spent 30 years and billions of dollars trying to kill open source to be a good steward of open source software
I distrust such a company less than I distrust a company that sued to make APIs copyrightable, which would cut off avenues for free software to interoperate with widely used software. GitHub sold out to Microsoft because it was less bad for GitHub's users than selling out to Oracle. See "Everyone complaining about Microsoft buying GitHub needs to offer a better solution" by Peter Bright [arstechnica.com].
Re: (Score:2)
A perfect solution (continuation of GitHub as a going concern without acquisition by a current or former enemy of free software) is not always possible. The most likely outcomes would have been the following:
A. Microsoft acquisition
B. Oracle acquisition
C. No acquisition, and all repositories, issues, and wikis are deleted once the company runs out of money
If you can think of a superior yet achievable outcome, I'd like to hear about it
Re: (Score:3)
Why not speculate that the TOS will add a "first born" clause? It's equally likely.
If they do the change you mention they will have no users, they will have a massive PR failure to manage and they wouldn't gain anything.
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This logic is flawed. Just because they did bad things in the past, when they were run by different people, doesn't mean they will do bad stuff now.
Look at Slashdot and Sourceforge. We went form the dark days of Dice to the current management that actually seems pretty good.
FWIW while the forced upgrades are annoying, GitHub does them already. In fact all web apps do. That's just part of the deal if you don't want to self host, it's the compromise you make for having a free time-saving service.
Re: (Score:3)
For me, the general concern is that MS in general is part of the trend of creating behemoth 'too big to fail' organizations. Even presuming the old leadership misbehaved, but new leadership is all peachy now, who is to say the next leadership will be similarly peachy. If fortunes can change so easily for the better, then they can change easily for the worse.
Just look at slashdot, they went from respected to Dice. It can cut both ways. It wasn't worth worrying about because it's "just slashdot".
Additiona
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed - Microsoft really has pretty much changed their attitude wholesale, and I give them credit for it. (Go back and look at my early /. posts from 20 years ago, and you'll find that there were few people who opposed Microsoft and called them out on their dirty tricks as I did. Around that time, I was the head guy in charge of all software for half of Dell (Latitude and Inspiron), so I saw the ugly underbelly of Microsoft's sleaziest days during the DoJ debacle. Attorney General Janet Reno's intent was
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess you're living in an alternative universe. I gave Microsoft credit for changing its ways until having the misfortune of using their products:
1. Try disabling automatic updates in Windows 10.
2. Their start button search. Suppose you want to search only locally without sending MS your search term?
3. Software subscriptions? Isn't that a way to ensure you're tied to make eternal payments to MS if you ever want you view/edit your old documents?
Solutions to the puzzles above:
1. Use the registry to change y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Just because they did bad things in the past, when they were run by different people, doesn't mean they will do bad stuff now.
I asked this elsewhere, and I ask this again. The people who run Microsoft now (at least the CEO) were working for Microsoft back in the nineties. So, apparently they thought it was an OK company to work for while they were doing all these shady things. Why should we start trusting people who obviously thought Microsoft's behavior back in the nineties was morally acceptable?
Re: Not a dev (Score:2)
Let's look at Slashdot. At peak, readership was 100,000 a day (source: CmdrTaco) and there were few trolls. The site had minimal to no advertising. Discussions were on news for nerds. Other sites feared us, the Slashdot Effect.
Today? Most geeks don't even remember Slashdot exists.
Re: Not a dev (Score:2)
They still pull dirty tricks. They're still doing bad things. They have continued to violate US and EU antitrust laws and still facilitate cybercrime with poor security.
Their Linux contributions coincide with kernel stability falling.
I'd blame them for systemd, but I lack proof.
They are an evil empire that continues to behave as an evil empire. They should be broken up.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and Romans have a history of feeding Christians to Lions. I still travel there on vacation. Sheesh.
Re: Not a dev (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like... seriously?
You're literally calling for people to be fed to lions... because THEY'RE "backwards." You sound like the Atheist equivalent of a flat-earther talking about how "jet fuel can't melt steel beams."
Dude... who hurt you? Was it Father O'Maley at Bible camp? Did he touch your no-no?
Re: (Score:2)
If they do the change you mention they will have no users, they will have a massive PR failure to manage and they wouldn't gain anything.
Are you just now hearing about Microsoft?
Excellent one. Can't believe there are people who think Microsoft would EVER support open source. For the grandparent-poster: They would gain plenty. Even just hurting the feelings of open source fans would be like an ice cream sunday to MS.
Re: (Score:2)
Ug.. Sundae. My bad.
Re: Not a dev (Score:2)
Yeah Microsoft didn't inject funds into SCO to take Linux. Idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do distinctly remember a time of open source BEFORE the Linux kernel (and even that was already 27 years ago - 1991). The FSF and GNU were an '80s thing (although I didn't use their tools at that time - an 8-bit Speccy wasn't the target platform for that software).
Open source software didn't 'begin' with Microsofts 'open' acknowledgement of it, a.k.a. the 1998 Halloween memo. Nor will any antagonization within Microsoft end just because of all the recent 'super open' love declarations. Microsoft is a comp
Re:Not a dev (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair enough, but were you born under a rock? Embrace Extend Extinguish was invented by Microsoft. Would you want that mentality anywhere near where your best work was going? "They are scum" is a pretty valid concern anyway, if in fact they are, but how about the fact they already had an open source project nursery which they mismanaged, abandoned and closed. As in just closed. In a lovely piece of irony, Github was where most of the projects that lost hosting on Codeplex went to. So you'll perhaps understand why no one in the community wants to see a beloved, and successful site like Github taken over by the company that demonstrably and spectacularly failed at that already. This isn't even to mention the long and storied track record Microsoft has of being the playground bully. They are the ones who originally funded SCO and sicced Darl McBride on the entire open source community. You may remember him as the one who called open source software unamerican, and wrote a letter to congress stating the GPL was unconstitutional.
This isn't a case of McDonalds, where they make their food crummier and crummier year after year for 30 years until they realize they've lost all their corporate goodwill and then spend the next decade trying to win it back. Putting a few Linux services in Windows doesn't suddenly make them the good guys. This is the company that exercised the nuclear option on the entire open source community, and failing to destroy it is now trying to buy the largest open source foundry in existence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Embrace Extend Extinguish was invented by Microsoft.
Their behavior, especially since Windows 10, certainly proves that's true, doesn't it? As does their development of running Linux under Windows 10 ("Why would you need to boot a Linux OS when you can just use Windows 10?" That's the message that sends). Microsoft also doesn't even try to conceal the fact that they'd like to more-or-less own all computing devices so far as OS and applications go, so to my mind it's no stretch at all that they'd like to "embrace extend extinguish" Linux and any other competin
Re: (Score:2)
So your argument is that fearing the thing that Microsoft hasn't done, but is really easy to do, proves that you're not being paranoid? Because the event you're fearful of hasn't happened in the last 10+ years that it's been technically and legally feasible? This is a cake and eat it too argument. It's not paranoid, it's dumb.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and italians invented feeding Christians to Lions. About your "under a rock" comment. You can come out now. The war is over. The good guys won.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Humans have trouble fighting off things like lions or wolves in packs. Humans have little physical difficulty with individual lions, given a well-rested human in decent shape. Lions are also fairly tame, which is why you can handle them as a matter of course. Gladiatorial lion fighting sounds like the kind of blood sport in which barbaric societies might engage, except things like cows are somewhat more aggressive and would be more interesting to watch.
Bears, on the other hand, will destroy you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm very much on record as being strongly in favor of open source software for three decades, but I'm also one of those people who believes the GPL and its inherent virality is fundamentally evil, and yes, also unconstitutional. Keep in mind that those who take the GPL as strong are doing so as an article of faith - it's never really been tried and tested in court in any significant way. That's not because the GPL is really that strong legally, but because anyone taking it on in court knows they would fac
Re: Not a dev (Score:2)
Re: Not a dev (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's never really been tried and tested in court in any significant way.
Hello, someone hasn't been paying attention. In Oracle vs Google, the GPL was entirely relied on. What part specifically do you think hasn't been tested in court?
Re: (Score:2)
While true, it's hard to recall an EEE strategy they put forth in the past... 10-15 years. On the other hand, Google and Amazon seem to have taken that strategy and run with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nokia was an acquisition to try to jump start Windows Phone. It was a play to expand, but it wasn't EEE. It didn't even embrace anything. EEE would be if they had a custom Android distro that they pushed on Nokia, that had special features when it worked with MS products and/or had closed-sourced add-ons. And then kept going until that was pretty much required to run Android.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you forgetting what they did to Symbian and Maemo?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not a dev (Score:2)
Ignorant Microsoft shill spotted, plenty of evil executives remain who attacked open source and spread FUD. I'm expecting bad things about Git, embrace and extinguish as usual. DEVS, Get your projects off there!!
Is MS following GitHub's $ or buying insurance? (Score:3)
It all comes back to following the money. Will you stipulate that Microsoft is still focused on making more money? If you're hesitant, I think you at least have to agree that the fake problem of maximizing profits remains unsolved. There is still some money out there that Microsoft doesn't have.
However I contend that GitHub doesn't have much money. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that Microsoft is investing in GitHub in expectations of making direct profits. Various kinds of indirect profits,
Re: (Score:3)
No.
I have nothing against Microsoft, really. I think they are trying to improve their behavior. I respect their current CEO.
That being said, I think the world is a better place if there is less concentration of power. Especially in a handful (AMZN, GOOG, AAPL, MSFT) of mega-corporations.
I prefer a lot of competition by a lot of smaller actors. Not de-facto monopolies.
Hence, I have moved to GitLab and will move again if they are acquired by a very large player.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Big companies are very bad. Big Government is very, very, bad. The combination of big companies and big government makes the big government even bigger and more powerful than it could be even in most totalitarian regimes - and that extinguishes freedom and liberty every time it happens.
Trust (Score:2)
I'd go to GitLab (Score:2)
Not a GitHub user (Score:2)
For my own stuff, I self-host git because it’s trivially easy to do. For work, we host our own private repositories as well. I have used software hosted on GitHub, though.
I’m not crazy about Microsoft buying GitHub, but I’m not feeling much outrage. Since it’s git-based, the absolute worst thing I can think of that MS could manage is simply to drive the GitHub site into obscurity - possibly by forking git itself and using that.
Re: (Score:2)
If they did, they'd just end up with a son of a git, and who in the world would want to use something like that?
GitLab is the primary competition, right? (Score:2)
When I think of GitHub competitors, it's a pretty short list. Bitbucket and GitLab are the two big ones.
For community open source projects, the list is even shorter.
Re: (Score:3)
Give it a chance (Score:2)
I'll give them a chance. Worst case scenario I doubt they'll ruin it THAT quickly, and maybe it'll be good for Github in the long term. Let's see what happens before we start the crusades.
If it comes to it, everyone contributing has a complete history of the code so at least you're ready to migrate that portion on demand. Loss of existing issues and pull requests sucks though.
Re:Give it a chance - me too (Score:2)
Seriously, have people been living under a rock for the past decade. Microsoft is probably the most FOSS friendly company in the world at the moment. I understand people running for Shelter in 1990, but the war is over. The good guys won.
Bend over and take it. (Score:2)
Uh, it's git. (Score:1)
I can take the critical aspects of my git history with me as soon as GitHub does anything even remotely uncool. I feel comfortable using them until I don't.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, it isn't just git. There a number of things that are not easy to port, including issues, connections to other users (in comments, likes, etc.), and links from other places to your github projects. It's manual, it's slow, and it's annoying AF.
Re: (Score:3)
GitLab has migration tools [gitlab.com]. Haven't tried them, but I hear that they do make things a lot easier.
GitLab, Bitbucket or SourceForge, but not so easy (Score:5, Insightful)
There are several alternatives to GitHub: GitLab, Bitbucket, SourceForge and probably many others, including self-hosting (which could be a GitLab instance or any homegrown system).
One of the nice features of git is that it is trivial to move a git repository to a different host while preserving the full history. However, a Free Software project is much more than just the source code: the multiple links between the commits, the pull requests and the issue tracker are also very valuable. Unfortunately, this part is much more difficult to migrate correctly because the ids in the issue tracker may change, the references to related repositories may be broken, the user identities may not match, etc. These things are also part of the project and there is a risk that some of them are lost when the project migrates to another host.
It is nice that SourceForge offers a tool to import a GitHub project [sourceforge.net]. However, this tool is not perfect and suffers from some of the issues mentioned above: for example, all GitHub issues imported as SourceForge tickets will require a lot of manual editing to fix the ownership of the tickets, and it will not be possible to fix all comments. Besides, there is the issue of trust: I was a GIMP contributor and I was hurt by what happened three years ago when SourceForge hijacked the distribution of GIMP for Windows and replaced Jernej's installer by another package containing malicious software. Although I appreciate SourceForge's efforts to reverse the damage done at that time, I do not think that I would trust them for respecting the privacy and security of their users. They had broken their promise (they promised that they would never hijack a project, but they did exactly that a few months later) and now I am worried that it could happen again even if the SourceForge team has changed.
GitLab also offers a tool to import a GitHub project [gitlab.com]. That tool is not perfect either, but it is better than SourceForge's tool, for example for importing pull requests and their review comments. And also better than Bitbucket, which requires a lot of manual steps for importing a project.
So from my point of view, GitLab seems to be the best alternative for the migration. Its web interface also feels a bit lighter than BitBucket's. However, I will probably wait a bit and see what will change in GitHub before moving any of my (private) projects because the migration effort is significant.
GitLab has been very good to me.. (Score:2)
I've used GitLab rather than GitHub since day one (my day one with Git, I mean). Reasons are that 1) free account gives public / private / group access controls; and 2) GitLab appeared to be a smaller organization (at least at the time), and so I felt it would be more likely to remain true to Git's basic protocols and features.
It's work out perfectly. GitLab has been super easy to integrate with development platforms using URLs and SSH keys, online (like Codeanywhere) and offline (like my Windows and Linux
Re: (Score:3)
One the above post, I thought I'd have a quick play.
Sure enough, it 'just works'. Currently just got one repo I'm playing with - and using less than 64Mb RAM...
Certainly much kinder on the system than self-hosting bitbucket or gitlab...
Move (Score:2)
Probably self-hosted Gitlab.
I'll be reading up on Gitlab and Bitbucket (Score:2)
Speaking as a developer (Score:1)
It is does not appear on Github, nor are we likely to ever use it in the future, whether M$ owns it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
He's just bragging that he can write hard to use software with poor documentation.
If people need extensive training to figure out how to use your software, there's a significant probability that it's poorly written, unintuitive, garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't necessarily the case. Some software solves hard problems that even fantastic documentation can't help with. One example of this is multiphysics solvers. Have a look at the documentation for ComSol. It's awesome! Even with that fantastic documentation, the software is about as intuitive as trying to spoon a cougar wearing a bacon bikini.
Other Alternatives (Score:2, Informative)
GitLab [gitlab.com] only provides a 30 day free trial, not a free tier. Bitbucket [bitbucket.org] has never been very good (it has been ok in a corporate death reaper, sort of way, that makes you see everything in blue).
SourceForge [sourceforge.net] and OSDN [osdn.net]. They are both free. SourceForge has had stability problems that has also affected this site. OSDN seems like a good service that is not yet popular.
There is Gitea [gitea.io] and Gogs [gogs.io] for self-hosting a git web interface.
Please add more alternatives!
Re: (Score:2)
Xcode (Score:2)
Start making money for a change.
"self hosting"? I doubt your ISP allows that. (Score:1)
We have to remove them from the picture to have real self hosting. Where are the people with talent to do that? And why won't the rest of you acknowledge the problem?
never forget (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but your mom's code will be gone and you'll have to keep your Xbox in the garden shed.
Satya's new strategy (Score:4, Funny)
Satya's obviously been reading about Bill Gates' history recently, especially the part where he went through trash bins looking for code to steal.
Wait and see. (Score:3)
EOM
Most of the above... (Score:3)
For now, my team will keep engaging on github. We will honor however our community engages, and until demonstrated otherwise, we aren't going to shut the door on github.
When the Microsoft acquisition was confirmed, we wanted to contribute to data showing the world that alternatives exist. So we registered our stuff with gitlab and added gitlab mirroring to our automation. It's not much effort to do the gesture so we did.
We also have been doing internal hosted gitlab for a long while now. We used to have our automation assume availability of the github hosting, and then they had some outages that aligned poorly with some of our needs. We then make an internal host to mirror and changed our automation and workflow to use that as primary and github as a follow-up. github was still needed for community engagement, but that's less urgent and as such can take the occasional brief outage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest surprise for me of all of this is how much anti-Microsoft rage their still is in the world, and how strong it is.
Just wait another 20 to 30 years and more people will forget the eighties and nineties. Personally, I'm still waiting for Microsoft to apologize for Millennium Edition.
Re: Most of the above... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To some extent, certainly there is anti-MS sentiment.
Not as well phrased or recognized is a general sense of foreboding about the consolidation of power in the industry to an oligopoly. This is a state of affairs that would be bad no matter what private company it was.
You'll need all contributors to move to be useful (Score:3)
One of the best parts of GitHub is the ability to jump into any project you happen to find that you happen to discover an issue with or make on ad-hoc enhancement to you'd like to share. It's one thing for individual repo owners, both public and private, to move their stuff off GitHub. It's a whole other thing to get all the contributors and "fans" watching those projects to also move.
After reflecting for a few days, there really is no good option and I believe less than 1% of GitHub projects will actually be moved off. MS made a deft move by acquiring GitHub; it's probably their best buy in the last 10 years. Kinda startling if you think about it. Basically Google & Apple let us down on this one by not saving our code from MS.
And I'm not blaming the GitHub owners from cashing out. I hope they are soon to be seen racing yachts in the Mediterranean sleeping on a bed of Ibiza Eurotrash. Kudos
All your code wants to be free (Score:2)
Never trust anyone not to steal it.
Oh, pardon me, "acquire it" in Ferengi-speak or MSFT-speak if you will.
(caveat: I have worked at MSFT and bought my first house due to them)
I self-host (Score:2)
For now... (Score:2)
...keep using it unless/until they screw it up...
I mostly use SVN (Score:2)
For personal use, I host a collection of subversion repos that I use for my source code and other files (documents, spreadsheets, etc.). I've always been a bit leery of relying on businesses to keep cloud services going... Google Reader, for example. I host a commafeed instance on the same server with SVN. I'm using a cloud provider for my VM, but if they go bust I can always relocate my stuff. I back up the repos nightly to my local host.
Professionally, I've used GitHub for projects. I don't have any real
Start prepping for a possible move, but not commit (Score:3)
Basically, I consider this development worrisome, but not frightening. There are a number of possibilities for how things could go. Therefore, my current plans are:
1. Make sure I have accounts with some of the competing services, so I can move if necessary.
2. Familiarize myself with the competing services, so I won't be caught flat-footed if I have to move.
3. Keep a sharp eye on any further developments on the Github side, so I can (hopefully) see when it's time to move.
Yes, I could have just voted "Continue to use Github", but that seemed like a...partial truth, so I picked "Other" instead.
We already use Gitlab (Score:2)
Self-hosted. Enterprise Edition.
I do have a gitlab account - I don't think it's gone go away any time soon.
Compare with Skype. (Score:2)
One only has to look what M$ did to Skype...once a rather wonderful tool, that didn't really need ANY changes - and every revision since then has made it worse - to the point where it's almost unusable in many cases.
I'm not sure whether it was incompetence or malice that wrecked Skype - but it really doesn't matter - the end result is the same.
With something like GitHub - where the sources to so many vital OpenSource software packages live - and where many of Microsoft's rivals have code stored in private r
Re: (Score:2)
Skype being so crap has led to great alternatives. I use Discord now for business. I'm sure I'm not the only gamer turned businessman who does this. Far better platform that just works.
Migrating the issues (Score:2)
your files, complete with all of their history, should transfer over OK so long as you do it soon
It's easy to migrate the repository from one Git host to another. I'm interested in how you managed migrating associated data, particularly issues and wiki documentation.
This is just something that never should have happened.
Oracle would have been worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I have settled on self hosting my own stuff using gitea, which runs fine on raspberry pi computers or on inexpensive web space. And it was relatively easy to set up
Including getting your ISP to forward ports from the Internet to your Raspberry Pi computer? A lot of ISPs use carrier-grade network address translation (CGNAT) because they don't have enough IPv4 addresses for all their home subscribers. And then what do you use for offsite backup of the repository that you store on your RPi's SD card?