Nadella tells worried GitHub devs: Judge us by our actions Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella is at pains to reassure developers that its $7.5bn purchase of GitHub won't turn the code repository into an Azure-only space. "We love developers, and we love open source developers," he said on a call formally announcing the deal on Monday morning before promising, repeatedly, that GitHub will …
"It made me think "Well now that we know you can be bought, all we need do is haggle over price." "
I'm not sure what world you live in, but most of us exchange our time+labour+knowledge+experience for money. Typically this is called "a job" where we're hocking ourselves out for an hourly/daily rate. Even those of us who are self employed also rent ourselves out to other people.
Reasoning that since I'll do a disgusting job for a million bucks, I might do it for five bucks is pretty awful logic. There's a massive difference between haggling over a price within a sensible range, and giving people piss taking amounts.
If you go for a job interview for a dev job, and their first offer is minimum wage and no benefits, would you a) respond with a more reasonable offer or b) walk out, since they are wasting your time. But you'd still do the dev job. Hell, you'd probably even done a dev work for free, on something you enjoy.
There is also a world of difference between being paid "Fuck you" money* and five bucks. A million bucks might not cut it, so say five million.
As long as you don't get any fatal diseases, most people would accept fuck you money in exchange for sleeping with even the most revolting people. Some people would rather starve than "sell out", but you'd be amazed how often that changes once they get a chance to do it, rather than talk about it theoretically.
Same applies if you have built a business. You should have an exit strategy, one of which is when a big player comes in and offers to buy you out. If you've managed to not have any employees with stock, no critical employees, no VC and no debts then you *might* be able to refuse. Have any of those, then you might find that if you refuse the offer then you lose the whole shebang.
There's a quote from Empire of the Sun that is somewhat relevant here: "People will do anything for a potato"
* enough money that you need never work again. Unless you've got crazy expenses, house cost plus a million plus 50k * (80 - current_age) is a good guess.
The same Microsoft referred to in the leaked Halloween documents???
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents
The same Microsoft caught bribing bloggers to say nice things with the lure of an Asus Ferrari laptop??
http://www.istartedsomething.com/20061227/microsoft-free-ferrari/
.... Microsoft would be mad to cut off AWS and Google Cloud – sending hundreds of thousands of developers scurrying off to an alternative and undermining its own valuation of the company
Why would they worry about the valuation? It's only shareholder's money they're spending, and on balance everything they've ever bought before has been turned to slag in a few short years.
Moronsoft bought Github not for any real strategic purpose, plan, or gain, but because Github was available to be bought. In every corporate or bank boardroom M&A is always much preferred as a glamorous and welcome distraction to the tedium of making better products or serving customers better.
Several more rang in this afternoon asking for alternatives.
No, I didn't put a bug in their ear; They called me after hearing the news.
Methinks MS is buying a pig in a poke. It's usually best to understand what you are investing large sums of money in ... Not that that ever stopped corporate idiots from leaping before looking for a suitable landing place.
On which planet?
I happen to like the current GitHub Web Interface patch/diff formatting. And their simple markup editor.
Note to Satnad: code writing isn't done in GitHub.
I don't want some idiotic Microsoft bloatware editor with helpful pop-ups, a trending news feed, and suggestions to connect to other Microsoft GitHub users on LinkedIn. Or Skype. None of which I will be able to disable.
Sigh. It was only a matter of time before something useful, well-designed and well-implemented was going to be borged and subsequently destroyed by Microsoft.
When you haven't come up with a single interesting idea for more than a decade, that's what you do. You turn into Oracle, you acquire companies and you create opportunities.
Almost got a VPS spun up onto which I will migrate the projects I used to have on GitHub. As soon as that's done....goodbye Microsoft!
Also, before the ToS change, will be putting a few tidbits of bad information in my account. Those slight misspellings and other changes will be unique to GitHub. If that info ends up ANYWHERE else, it's GDPR time!
But I'm pretty bummed that you can no longer create GitHub Gists anonymously any more.
You used to be able to post code snippets without logging in or even having a GitHub account.
It was great for exposing naughty devs and other "bad actors" and still remain (semi) anon.
"judge us by the actions we have taken in the recent past, our actions today and in the future."
Recent actions like Telemetry and forced upgrades?
'He reiterated, again, that Microsoft was "all in with open source."'
Cool! So you'll be open-sourcing directx then?
Do that and I *might* start to believe you.
Again, Ballmer wasn't calling Linux a cancer, his clumsy choice of words notwithstanding. Read the entire statement where he elaborates rather than just the headline. He was comparing the GPL Linux uses to a cancer that attaches itself to whatever it touches, which is kind of what Richard Stallman (who believes that closed software, the kind MS writes, is unethical) had in mind when he wrote it. Other licenses in the open-source world are not as restrictive, which is probably why Apple used BSD as the base for OSX/MacOS and not Linux.
At least with Ballmer, you knew where MS stood. Of course a closed-source software vendor is going to think the GPL sucks; they're supposed to. Now we have to wonder what MS is up to with this nonsense, because we know that MS really does not, in fact, "love Linux." Ballmer told us the truth as he saw it, but Nadella-era MS seems never to miss an opportunity to lie to us, try to deceive us, manipulate us, or what have you. If they told me the sky was blue, I would assume it was a lie until I verified it for myself, and then I'd wonder what their angle is in actually telling the truth about something... where the monetization comes in.
then it should have been avoided at all costs. Do you have a good explanation on why everybody keeps bitching and using such a restrictive license instead of simply adopting BSD - the essence of freedom ?
As for Apple's decision to use BSD as a base for its OS, it's because they wanted to take advantage of other people's work without giving back as little as a Thank You postcard to the community.
This is the reason why GPL ecosystem thrives compared to BSD. With GPL those who want to use it must contribute back (either they like it or not) to the community. It has been designed like that on purpose so we have to option of use it or to avoid it if it looks too restrictive.
There's not only BSD - there are also Apache and Mozilla (and other licenses), and there's a lot of code released with non-GPL licenses - basically, most of what is not developed for Linux is often non GPL exactly because GPL is toxic.
GPL is not designed to contribute back only - as others are - it's designed to force all the code it touches to become open source. Very different aims.
Agreed. I use the GPL precisely because it's restrictive and because derivative works must be released under the same license.
If I couldn't do the GPL (or something functionally equivalent), then I wouldn't have released quite a lot of the software that I have over the years.
By the same token, I don't GPL everything I do. It makes sense for some things, and makes no sense for others.
"With GPL those who want to use it must contribute back (either they like it or not) to the community."
No. This is a a caricature arising from the notion that everyone is a programmer. That notion is, I'm sad to say, sheer elitism The caricature fails on several grounds:
1. There is no restriction on who can use GPL S/W. Many users would have no skills to give anything back, nor do they want to acquire those skills, nor should anyone assume they'd want to. Many users who do have such skills have no need to make amendments what could be contributed back.
2. If a user makes some modifications for their own use and does not distribute S/W they do not have to make such modifications available to anyone.
3. The actual requirement is that if someone distributes the S/W, whether in original or modified form, to someone else they must provide the source code as distributed. The nature of the licence is such that any such modifications could be picked up by the wider community. There's a built-in assumption that this would happen but there's still no requirement to publicise the existence of such modifications nor to pass them to the maintainers so it's not guaranteed.
4. Someone who makes a modification can attempt to contribute it back to the community but there's no guarantee that the maintainers will accept it.
The converse notion, that those who use BSD S/W do so because they don't want to contribute back and are somehow being parasites on BSD developers is also a caricature, partly for 1. above and partly because the BSD developers have chosen to work with such a licence and, one must, presume, OK with anyone using their work in that manner. BTW, this is not to say anything about the extent to which Apple contribute to BSD: for all I know they may contribute back work of their own or support developers in some way or do nothing - I have no knowledge of that.
There is a long litany of anti-user actions by Slurp with just Bloat 10; too long to enumerate here. So why would anyone trust a know liar and scum when they mouth platitudes? Developers should be wary of someone borrowing their code, particular scum like Slurp, without any attribution and probably in violation of the license.
For my projects, I am actively looking at alternatives such as GitLab but I am open to others.
I think Slurp may have miscalculated badly. Developers are a wary bunch and hate being burned more than once. Also, a git version control system can be implemented internally, if so desired. The advantage of GitHub or GitLab is cost and not having to deal with the plumbing of such a system. So, it is relatively easy to move to another and the people deciding to make the move have the technical skills to pull it off. Also, there is nothing inherently special about GitHub, GitLab, etc. that makes it the only option for a project. All a contributor needs to know is where to pull the code for a project. The presence of other projects is really not very critical.
LinkedIn is more like Failbook in that most users are there as a type of social network and really do not pay much attention to the antics of the owner and how they abuse one's data. Thus, most users are not likely to abandon LinkedIn.
Oh, did we mention that there was no question-and-answer session at the end of the call? Can't imagine why.
---
Possibly because first Q = Why ?
First A = Opportunities ..................
personally I feel we should give MS a shot at this, as GitHub was effectively broke, and now it isn't, and even MS can't screw the pooch THAT fast surely ?
I have time lined this statement, will check back in a couple of months to see if there is a gaping hole in the web where there used to be a Git
Yes, Github desperately needed to work out their money situation, but selling to Microsoft?? No, sorry, there had to have been other options, and if there weren't, then it would still have been better to just close up shop.
"I feel we should give MS a shot at this"
Why? It's not like there's any doubt as to how this is going to play out. No "wait and see" is needed here. Microsoft is going to be Microsoft.
"No, sorry, there had to have been other options"
With that amount of money, you're looking at:
Amazon
Apple
IBM (maybe)
Oracle
Microsoft
Which would you have chosen?
Amazon might pony up, but it doesn't really fit into their core business. Apple only occasionally care about open source. Google have their own in-house version control system. IBM probably don't have the cash. Oracle, well they'd probably love to buy Github, but lets face it, they'd fuck it up more and faster than MS ever could. Facebook aren't into development really, which just leaves Microsoft, who have a a business that depends on developers making software for their platforms.
And as for "it would still have been better to just close up shop"; the owners of GitHub have already taken $350 million from venture capitalists, what on earth makes you think they care about anything except making good on that investment?
"Which would you have chosen?"
Out of that list? Apple. However, by "other options", I include ones that don't involve selling the company, and ones that don't necessarily include a $7 billion price tag.
"what on earth makes you think they care about anything except making good on that investment?"
Nothing. They've shown what their interest is by being willing to sell to Microsoft. I was talking about "better" as in "better for the community". OF course, in the long run, I think that's essentially what they did -- Github will lose its relevance now, as developers move to other platforms. Github will go the Sourceforge route -- people may continue to store code there for convenience sake, but the real action will be elsewhere. The only question is which competing platform will be the winner.
How come only white guys or guys with beards are allowed to have a table? Is there some sort of white/beardist agenda here? And how come the beardy man has to wear a suit? And the woman that has to stand up (no table or chair for her) happens to also have to wear a suit. Why do the two people with the darkest complexion have to wear suits?
Also, why is github spying on all of their laptops?
I think your last question is the easiest to answer - it's what the article is about!
But on the subject of the article... Since Windows 8, Microsoft has tried to force trick encourage users to sign up with a Microsoft account. So which version of Visual Studio will try to force trick encourage users to sign up to GitHub and give Microsoft access to all their development code? Next? Next again?
"Business developers, not devs, talk about opportunities."
There's the insane "nothing bad" management style that insists on thinking of things as opportunities, not problems.* It might not be how MS sees these opportunities but it might be the way devs see them when they encounter them.
* Note that "problem" seems to be almost totally replaced by "issue" in current usage.
I see opportunities, and I think there's still enough Dev in me for it to count.
Like Bombastic Bob I think that Visual Studio 2000 was an excellent Dev environment. The current CI environments are mostly awful.
So imagine a github extended with a decent, Microsoft designed CI that takes your code, builds and deploys to a container in Azure. Yes, it'll be clunky if you're self hosting or on EKS and you'll have to script the deploy yourself but you'd hope for something better than Jenkins or CircleCI. It could easily even be better that Heroku and if Microsoft can hijack Heroku's market then they'll make their billions back.
> I see opportunities, and I think there's still enough Dev in me for it to count.
> Like Bombastic Bob I think that Visual Studio 2000 was an excellent Dev environment. The current CI environments are mostly awful.
I think you mean Visual Studio 98 (VC++ 6, VB 6). There was no VS between 1998 and 2002/03. 1999 was when M$ went shit, with Gates and his crazy dotNet "vision" that never worked out (and today is almost forgotten) and dotNet 1.0 in 2003 was just a bland Java 1.2 clone and non of high goals he had in his vision. Anyway VC++ 6 IDE as well as the VB 6 IDE were the last really great ones.
Several have alluded to the 7.5 billion paid for GitHub, a company that was essentially broke and badly overvalued by any reasonable measure. One has to wonder how Slurp is going to make back the purchase of what is an easily replicated service. There should be a plan to make money off the deal but marketing babble about opportunities does make a plan. If they are counting lock-in or loyalty, there is no real lock-in and developers are loyal to their projects/employers not Slurp. Customer loyalty to any vendor is always limited and if there is reasonable competitor customers may jump if provoked. As for lock-in, using Git locally or internally does not require any special skills or hardware and using another service such GitLab will not require an extensive learning curve. It is not the same as being locked-in to an OS and what is available on that OS, which is true to some extent for all OSes.
The head scratcher is why so much for a company whose only claim is they one of the larger online source control vendors. It is not as if someone could not start another with the available tools and a little bit of seed money. And it is not as if the a project or company really cares who the vendor is but rather that they can reliably reach the site. We are not talking a social network or online game where there is a definite critical mass to make money.
Opportunities: Mining the code for patents. Mining the code for good ideas that can be re-purposed for the Microsoft brand. Mining the code in order to build a better code writer AI (with patents) and attempt to lock (Enterprise) development into Microsoft tools. Copyright opportunities. Talent opportunities. Mindshare opportunities. Marketing, financial and expert assistance to projects that favour Microsoft brands.
> Nadella pleaded with software developers to "judge us by the actions we have taken in the recent past, our actions today and in the future."
(cut and pasted from wikipedia because I was too lazy to type it from memory):
A scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, they would both drown. Considering this, the frog agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion replies that it was in its nature to do so.
Just in case it isn't obvious, MS = scorpion.
(PS how can you judge someone on their future actions? Got a crystal ball handy? Or the Tardis?)
COMPARE A: To B:
---------------------------
A:
"Microsoft Chairman Thompson expressed distaste for companies whose ad-financed businesses share or sell user data, while declining to comment on Facebook Inc. specifically. “Many of them make money off ads and they have used that as kind of a leverage point,” he said of user data. “At Microsoft, we don’t believe in that.”
----------------------------
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-30/if-microsoft-finds-another-linkedin-deal-chairman-is-all-in
----------------------------
B:
....."When we talk about why we're upgrading the Windows 10 install base, why is that upgrade free? MS CFO asked during a meeting with Wall Street analysts. These are all new monetization opportunities once a PC is sold. Microsoft's strategy is to go low on consumer Windows licenses, hoping that that will boost device sales, which will in turn add to the pool of potential customers for 'Advertising'".....
....."CEO Nadella has referred to the customer revenue potential as 'lifetime value' in the past -- and did so again last week during the same meeting with Wall Street -- hinting at Microsoft's strategy to make more on the back end of the PC acquisition process. The more customers, the more money those customers will bring in as they view 'Ads'".....
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2917799/microsoft-windows/microsoft-fleshes-out-windows-as-a-service-revenue-strategy.html
Scene: MS head office meeting room
Cast:
Sat_Nad: needs no introduction.
K_B_A : Visionary level Business Analyst AKA Knows Bugger All.
L_B : Public Relations officer AKA Lying Bastard
D_A : Only person in MS identified has having some independent thoughts AKA Devils Advocate.
Sat_Nad :
We need more developers what are we going to do about it?
[Silence]
Sat_Nad : (aimed at L_B )
We are always telling developers how great they are why are they still leaving en mass.
[L_B Opens mouth]
D_A : (interjects)
Cos we keep shitting on them!
Sat_Nad :
Ok, Ok, lets move on. Where are the greatest concentration of developers now? (looks at K_B_A)
K_B_A :
From our months of extensive research and analysis we have identified the following organisations which seem to have favour with today's developers...
Sat_Nad : (interjects)
Cut the waffle and give me names!
[Pause as K_B_A rifles through the ream of paper in front of him]
K_B_A :
Stackoverflow, SourceForge, GitHub are the top three.
D_A : (rolls his eyes )
I could have written that list on a beer mat over a beer.
L_B :
Forget Sourceforge, they got tainted a few years back no amount of PR would work if we got involved with them.
As for Stack that would diminish our MS Knowledge base brand.
Sat_Nad :
Ok lets explore GitHub, how are they financially?
K_B_A : ( looking pleased with himself as he is already on the right page )
VC backed, looking to IPO, with projected burn out rate of four years without.
D_A :
So looking like a cheap buy then.
Sat_Nad :
Can't be too cheap otherwise those VCs may retaliate on our share price. So how many devs would come with this package.
K_B_A : (glancing down at his papers )
Approximately 20 million.
Sat_Nad :
I am liking that number.
D_A :
You'll be lucky to keep 20% of them.
K_B_A : (looks up from his notes )
We have already been active in this area, we are committing to git and have already muddied the waters with the linux grey beards with our GVFS, this could consolidate this.
D_A :
What about the private repos, where the money comes in?
K_B_A :
We do not have full lists of large scale users at present but this could be ascertained during due diligence without
any risk to us and we would be able to identify those who are not in the MS fold for targeted marketing.
Sat_Nad : (smiling)
Ahhh, opportunities!
Sat_Nad : (at K_B_A)
Work out how much this is going to cost.
(at L_B)
This is going to be a rough one get the machinery moving and ready
[Sat_Nad rises to leave]
Sat_Nad :
Oh and don't forget to lock D_A up again, can't have that level of negativity just floating around the company!
The inevitable exodus out of Github, because Microsoft can never, ever be trusted (especially SatNad's Microsoft).
Github will eventually shrivel up and die, a hollowed out husk like all prior Microsoft acquisitions before it.
You made your move, now we make ours.
M$ is doing experiments how to brainwash the open source community. Look at HN, M$ sock puppets everywhere and mods that censor Linux&Apple users. HN helped M$ to hype TypeScript, hype VSCode and hype "The New M$ - it's all different this time (tm)". Of course it was all a big lie. And SatNa is just evil, a sock puppet itself, with Bill Gates again being the boss (but behind the curtain). It doesn't help that Gates is hyping Monsato as well. Worst two companies on Earth.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
