Just had Nan on the phone, sobbing her heart out that her code archive on Github has been stolen by M$FT. Well done Satnad for upsetting a snowy-haired old lady!
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 …
"There is a direct correlation between vague marketing speak and the likelihood that a company is planning to do something you won't like."
Well put, Kieren.
And as far as LinkedIn is concerned - it has become an absolute, buggy mess. Every few months Microsoft removes more features from LinkedIn while refusing to fix bugs, meanwhile insulting members by calling the ongoing downgrades "exciting improvements".
I predict "exciting improvements" for Github in the future.
"judge us by the actions we have taken in the recent past, our actions today and in the future."
Weird, seen lots of obvious shill accounts on twitter been posting similar comments for the last few days, as if they had been somehow told what to write...
Oopsie, cover blown, new Microsoft shill accounts needed... Microsoft the company that never changes... As dirty as ever
I've seen the "Microsoft Shill" (aka sock puppets) at work in the past, particularly during the Win-10-nic beta. Dissenting voices were true 'grass roots'. The obvious fanbois [and howler monkeys] behaved in a "silence the opposition" mode nearly ALL of the time. A good number of THEM were probably shills, either people paid to do that sort of thing, or one person (or bot) acting as many.
Lesson learned: With respect to Win-10-nic, Micro-shaft asked for input, ignored what they weren't already going to do, and did what THEY wanted to do, anyway. They did not care about the existing base of users. They did not care about introducing slurp and ads as part of the OS. They did not care about driving development towards UWP and "The Store", both of which have effectively been FAILURES no matter how much lipstick they keep trying to put on the (non-oinky end of the) boar. They took away features people wanted, REFUSED to support (and in some ways, by deliberately breaking it) features that people wanted in order to customize windows 10 BACK to the way they wanted it, BANNED people from their forums for speaking out, and created a set of EULA's that are some of the WORST possible privacy violations I've ever seen.
What I fear in the future MOSTLY involves my logon, and how it would be used to track me, SPAM me, and otherwise MARKET TO me. My "coding fingerprint" for example, might tell them more than I want it to.
And, do we REALLY want Micro-shaft to be able to see what THEIR COMPETITORS are working on within a PRIVATE REPOSITORY? This includes patentable technologies as well as technologies that potentially involve "one of THEIR patents". Some of the implications here are obvious.
Perhaps it's time for independent developers to produce a REASONABLE alternative to the things that make GitHub very convenient, something considerably better than 'GitWeb' (the stuff that's included with 'git'). If it's an open source project, you could have MANY public or private 'githubs' everywhere.
/me wonders what Linus will do with HIS github repo for Linux
HackerNews ( https://news.ycombinator.com ) has actively supported M$ shills, at least since 2016.
The don't ban the M$ shills, but oppress the non-positive comments of regular users and shadow their comments, lower the user-visibility and ranking-score. They have gone from simply shadow banning to burry the M$-critical-users with their comments to the bottom of the page - "insta-burry".
It doesn't help YC (sama) immensely profited from this Github deal himself, being an early investor and adviser to GitHub and he arranged the exit (selling out to M$) with his personal connection to M$.
And Reddit is also an YC-startup, that started to censor and shadow ban, but leave the shills-accounts untouched.
So sad that the former Slashdot and Reddit crowd of high intellectual entrepreneurs and developers still frequent the HN website, who are very much in favor of M$. This crowd needs a new website, a place with no shadow banning, no censorship, and no M$ shills - like TheReg.
"Shill" - definition: Anyone who disagrees with me and holds an opinion that doesn't treat all corporate bodies as sons of satan. Since it is impossible for any right-thinking person to disagree with me, they therefore must be in the pay of said corporate body. Stands to reason.
Any online forum that doesn't recognise, and immediately ban, those with these opinions are also obviously in the pay of said corporate body. All online forums should be group-think hives where right thinking developers are safe from evil sons of satan and their obviously paid-for opinions.
> "Shill" - definition
There are only a few very rich companies and governments that pay sock puppet agencies to aggressively enforce their propaganda and try to brainwash people at a grand scale: Russia, Microsoft, Monsanto (the later two have Bill Gates as "saint" in common)
And then there are rather naive fanboys, that fall for the above mentioned shady and illegal activities.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me 999 times, go to hell.
Actually the definition of a 'shill' is someone who pretends to be convinced by the con man in order to draw in the 'mark', specifically being that he's 'in on it' from the beginning. In 3 card monty, he'd be the guy that's constantly losing when it's "obvious" to the mark, who then bets and loses. The 'shill' drew him in. Alternately a 'shill' might be someone who argues an opposite point in a way that makes the con man look brilliant, etc.. The common factor here is that he's 'in on the con' and is acting as if he's not.
In this context, the 'shills' would be MS paid and/or dedicated fanbois that pretend to be 'regular testers' or 'regular insiders', or 'regular users', but then engage with anyone that has an opposing opinion or complaint, in a manner that is deliberately intended to silence, intimidate, etc. including the use of pejoratives and even beligerance. Yes, I've seen it. And when you "engage them back", _YOU_ get the ban. Well, I was careful and never got banned. Several others DID, however.
Yes, it _IS_ Micro-shaft's forum, which means they CAN do this. However, they're being dishonest about it by using 'Shills' instead of just plain telling you "do not say bad things about us or our products". I have to ask why they're trying to HIDE it, or at least obfuscate it.
Also associated with that would be the 'sock puppets', aka multiple logins for the same person and/or using bots to make a single line of thinking look "popular"
> HackerNews ( https://news.ycombinator.com ) has actively supported M$ shills, at least since 2016.
The HackerNews topics on this disaster seem uniformly very unhappy about this. Not much in the way of MS shills being effective there.
Ars Technica is another matter entirely. That's extremely MS shill territory.
> The HN topics
The admins of HN are usally very quick to burry such threads, and start a fresh thread that populates rather quickly with positive comments. The good thing was, the first news about this disaster happened on Friday night, when HN admins were asleep and paid M$ shills were off (weekend). That's the reason why the discussion shifted this time. But the HN admins quickly started new threads and burried older threads, and unflavorable comments are hidden on page 3 and below (who really clicks on the small "More" link on the bottom). HN admins also often label threads as "dupe", then move comments around but leave the thread-points untouched. This has as "side-effect" that both threads vanish completely from the frontpage, as the combined thread now has more comments than up-votes. As excuse, the HN admins often write "the community flagged it", while in reality only the YC-startup-founders have full moderator controls. So yes, the Stripe and GitLab and GitHub CEOs have full moderator permissions on HN, like all the other early YC alumnis. Rather disgusting what happend after PG left YC, and the new M$ crowd around Slatman took over in 2015 (or so). Many insightful comments on HN are shadow banned, while paid comments sit on top to hype things. In retrospect, the sole purpose of HN is to hype YC founded startups - so better not try to post your "Show HN" or try to post something that might cross one of the YC business. Chances are good, that they will silence your post, while they start cloning your idea and projects just to hype their YC startup. That's why it's so sad that the good ol' Slashdot audience moved to Digg, then to Reddit and HN - and the later two are YC properties - meaning censorship instead of anon free speech.
Specificly the decades of repeated examples of MS "embrace, extend, & extinguish" actions that prove MS regularly, repeatedly, consistently, intentionally finds something good in the world, drags it into the MS fold, at which point MS promptly fucks over everyone that used it, relied on it, wrote code for it, or tried to use it to build upon.
Time after time after time MS has taken $Product that was widely supported, used extensively by common folks as well as pro coders, & so badly ruined it that the previous user/coder base goes elsewhere to find a replacement not yet tainted by MS' Sadim (that's anti-Midas, where everything turns to shit instead) touch.
Programs, coding libraries, tools, security, the list is so long as to be mind numbing in it's expanse. The examples of MS' FUBAR actions is so legion as to make it essentially impossible to list them all in any single web forum.
We *are* judging you by your actions - your actions are such aggregious, attrocious, apocolyptic examples of your ability to turn gold into shit that we naturally, rightfully, correctly guess that the newest MS victim will soon be rendered into yet another steaming pile of MS shit.
And this is important so listen Very. Fucking. Carefully...
You. Have. Nobody. To. Blame. But. Yourselves.
I can't make up my mind if "aggregious" was deliberate or a thinko. In favour of deliberate is the alliteration. Not that it matters why, it's such a beautifully apt word for Microsoft's actions: a portmanteau of "aggressively egregious." It deserves to enter common usage.
A pint, sir or madam.
> Nadella tells worried GitHub devs: Judge us by our actions
GitHub is dead for free software open source movement. Lot's of smaller companies will die, because M$ has now FULL read ACCESS to their "private Git repositories".
Gates, Balmer and Nadella are the pure devil. Go back to hell, and close down your sin-empire that spreads like cancer.
And that is why I have no interest in being screwed yet again by Microsoft! Their actions destroyed my main source of income by their actions over forcing my clients to pay them for a new version of windows and at the same time throwing in 'free' software to help justify the millions of pounds they required because XP was 'no longer supported'. I'm just not interested in dealing with a company that thinks they own everything and this is just another action to take further control of what should be an independent area of business!
"XP is over 13 years old. How long is MS suppose to support an OS?"
How about 'Forever', by way of incremental development and fixes, not re-re-re-inventing it 3 times, then CRAMMING IT UP OUR, er, DOWN OUR THROATS, and calling it "the last windows", complete with a FLUGLY 2D FLATSO UI, auto-updates that you can't shut off, SLURP, ADS, and TRACKING via a "Microsoft Logon", whether we want the "new, shiny" or NOT. Oh, and "The Store".
And if THEY aren't going to maintain XP, they should RELEASE THE SOURCE so that OTHERS can! I think the people over at ReactOS would really love doing that. They've been trying to write their OWN for YEARS.
Yeah, FAT CHANCE of THAT happening. But it would be GREAT for proving their intentions with GitHub are NOT EVIL.
Now, take THAT past behavior and consider/extrapolate what WILL happen to GitHub now that they'll have their GRIMY PAWS all over it...
That's why there's so many people making local backups
Surely you have the full repository of your code on at least one of your own machines already. It's not a matter of making a backup but ensuring you no longer upload/download from github and then deciding on an alternative (some may prefer to find an alternative first).
The clients I've pulled out of GitHub are already mirrored here, and are up and running, hosted on my systems. It's just a matter of nuking their accounts over there and then deciding where to host them long-term. Of course gawd/ess only knows if nuking at GitHub actually means their info is deleted ...
Is this the same Microsoft that planted spyware on millions of computers? The same Microsoft that back ported spyware to Windows 7? The same shitsack that made clicking on 'X' mean go ahead and install?
The same turd that gave a choice of 'install now' or 'install later' with no option not to?
Yes, Judge them by their actions.
I was gonna say something similar. Considering, although Windows 10 is good, he rammed it and continues to ram it down peoples throats we will never trust him. Not until he gives as back control of Windows updates.
Like the laptop at work today I was working on. Moved it to an OU with no policies. Then wondered why was going a little slow. It decided it was going to download 1803 and install it without asking. Lucky I caught it as it was downloading and not installing. The app packages he forces on work machines. Why does an office laptop fucking need xbox shit and minecraft.
Although they didn't kill the sysinteral tools, thankfully, I suspect they will fuck up github. If they do, expect the share holders to start looking to kick SatNav out.
and the latest Windows 10 update trying to claim that not linking your local account to a Microsoft account is a security risk as those people we're judging on their actions continue to try and shove unwanted accounts down out throats.
the same people are trying to force EDGE on everybody, resetting our defaults to EDGE, nagging if you change it.
the same people shoving Candy Crush etc. onto out machines even when we don't want it, and reinstating it if it gets removed?
the same people hiding options to disable junk like Cortana, and killing off the workarounds people find with each update?
yeah, we're judging you by those actions. I've been in the IT biz for 30 years and can't actually remember a more aggressively evil Microsoft than the one we have today.
moved all my projects off GitHub this afternoon.
"the latest Windows 10 update trying to claim that not linking your local account to a Microsoft account is a security risk"
Did it ALSO offer to sell the Brooklyn Bridge?
[first I'd heard of THAT one. Now, how can a 'cloudy' logon that TRACKS YOU be NOT a security risk?]
Oh... now I get it - MICRO-SHAFT'S "security" as in SECURELY STRANGLEHOLDING YOUR COMPUTER and MAKING YOU DO WHAT _THEY_ WANT!!!
Sorta like that "Genuine Advantage" thing that was a GENUINE ADVANTAGE for MICRO-SHAFT, and _NOT_ the CUSTOMER!
icon, because, facepalm the lame
Considering, although Windows 10 is good
Good for what?
It's so far beyond being utter trash that I can't even imagine what it would be good for, unless you're Microsoft. It would have to be massively improved to even get to the level of being complete rubbish. It's so bad that it is hard to be hyperbolic about it; any attempt to exaggerate it for effect merely ends up understating how bad it really is. Simply put, if I had to choose between using Windows 10 and quitting computing (something I've been doing avidly for nearly my whole life as a hobby, profession, and obsession) in any form, I'd take the latter.
Wow. Here I thought that I hated Win 10, but even I can recognize that Windows 10 does, in fact, load and execute programs very nearly 100% of the time.
...which is more than I can say about a number of (admittedly antique) operating systems that I've used or developed for over the decades. That's why I can't go along with your notion that Windows couldn't be any worse -- believe me, it could be.
Nearly a %100. Wow, for a top flight manufacturer of software operating systems you shock us with such a glowing "nearly" reference. Nearly, shouldn't it be just %100?
My windows 10 (brand new install) takes around 60 - 65 seconds to start software some times. So I guess nearly is accurate (still a pile of garbage when we are talking Steam or some of the games) but it is nearly %100.
"Wow, for a top flight manufacturer of software operating systems you shock us with such a glowing "nearly" reference."
You seem to think that I was defending Microsoft (which I do not consider a "top flight manufacturer"). I was not. I was only pointing out that there have been many other operating systems that were even worse. That doesn't make Windows any better.
The whole thing reminds me on the "Finding Nemo" movie, where Nemo and Dora encounter the shark Bruce, who says he is on a non-meat diet.
It would be interesting to find what MS actually bought, is it the name, the website software or the hope 80% will continue using it ?. What happened with MySQL when Oracle bought Sun Microsystems, is perhaps not a good omen for the deal MS made, Open-Source developers are very smart people with a distaste for big fat white sharks claiming they are on diet.
There's an old joke that goes something like this:
A man sits down next to a lady at the bar & asks her "Would you sleep with a complete stranger for a million dollars?" The lady thinks a second & answers that she would. "Fine. How about I give you five bucks to sleep with me?" She throws her drink in his face & shouts indignantly: "What kind of girl do you think I am?" To which he replies calmly: "We've already established that, now we're just haggling over the price."
I immediately thought of that joke when I read your comment about the amount of money being enough to get you to overlook a few things. It made me think "Well now that we know you can be bought, all we need do is haggle over price."
I do NOT intend any insult & apologize if I've given any, but you might want to rethink your comment in the light of that joke, no? =-j
"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???
The same Microsoft caught bribing bloggers to say nice things with the lure of an Asus Ferrari laptop??
.... 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:
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:
"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.”
....."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'".....
Scene: MS head office meeting room
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.
We need more developers what are we going to do about it?
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!
Ok, Ok, lets move on. Where are the greatest concentration of developers now? (looks at 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]
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.
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.
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.
So looking like a cheap buy then.
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.
I am liking that number.
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.
What about the private repos, where the money comes in?
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)
Sat_Nad : (at K_B_A)
Work out how much this is going to cost.
This is going to be a rough one get the machinery moving and ready
[Sat_Nad rises to leave]
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.
"Basically, they've been brainwashed in working for free while others reap the real, huge benefits."
You think all those devs working for Intel, Google, Red Hat etc. work for free? No wonder you're posting A/C. I wonder who your upvote was from - JJ Carter?
No, The open source community has found a way to bankrupt M$ in the same way the craft beer movement is bankrupting the brewing giants and similar pseudo monopolies that have long run out of original ideas - make a successful company, sell it to monopoly, rinse and repeat.
While Monsanto spends billions bribing governments in schools the open source movement is unleashing billions of solar powered raspberrypi robots that can clear fields of weeds and pests for less than the price of an MP's lunch.
"solar powered raspberrypi robots that can clear fields of weeds and pests"
Do these exist? I've been trying to find non-military priced robots that can handle driving over fields and take soil samples. Ideally needs to be able to survive immersion in water, being trod on by a cow, or getting flipped over.
A classic example of someone who has been brainwashed into thinking open source will save the world, propelled by basement-hidden software activists.
Actually, who benefited hugely from open source? Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, even Microsoft.... sure, some breadcrumbs were returned, but not the real code which makes them rich.
And look at how open source instead of creating competition is just creating huge silos. Even GitHub is one of the "all eggs in one basket" Moloch.
Open source pundits babble about "choice", but most of them are just fashion-driven and flock all together like moths to the flashiest tool du jour, for fear of not being "fashionable".
Now all of their eggs are belong to Microsoft, what a surprise, open source makes little money and some huge commercial company buy the eggs... and all the little beetles scramble around for a new place to hide.
Anyway, it looks soon Bayer will kill the Monsanto brand, it's probably too toxic to keep.
"Actually, who benefited hugely from open source?"
I have, given that almost all the software I run is open source, and much of it wouldn't have been attainable to me at all in the commercial world.
" Even GitHub is one of the "all eggs in one basket" Moloch."
Not really, given that every developer who has uploaded or downloaded code to/from github has the code on their own machines. It's trivial to move to another service, or to set up your own.
" it looks soon Bayer will kill the Monsanto brand, it's probably too toxic to keep."
Yes, but all that means is that instead of saying "Monsanto", everyone will say "Bayer". The toxicity doesn't vanish with the name.
The toxicity doesn't vanish with the name.
Here's your starter for five points: name the chemical company responsible for the Bhopal disaster.
And now your bonus questions for ten points each:
1) Name the company which bought out said chemical company and runs it as a wholly-owned subsidiary.
2) Can you cite recent major boycotts of the owning company's or subsidiary company's products?
3) Is the owning company's share price lower than expected given its price prior to that takeover and performance since the takeover?
4) How well are that subsidiary company's products selling?
Anyone get all 45 points?
MonkeyCee, what you are looking for exists. They are called "field hands" or "casual laborers" and can usually be had for the low, low price of minimum wage per hour (or less, if you're willing to pay cash & keep it off the books). I pay my guys considerably more ... but in all reality, I paid out zero dollars for the labor on this year's soil sampling. The Wife & I did it.
High-tech solutions might exist, but they aren't necessarily the best answer.
"High-tech solutions might exist, but they aren't necessarily the best answer."
I agree, however I'm studying robotics and AI, hence there isn't a lot of sympathy for my conclusions that the answer is manual labour or a mechanical turk :)
I figured the assertion was *probably* hyperbole, but it's not impossible to find well built robots with crappy software. We then write better software, and sometimes cram another sensor or two on, and make a useful robot.
If the terms of service for outlook.com are anything to go by, anyone writing any experimental code that is even mildly controversial is going to get pulled/locked out from Microsoft's servers for "abuse of their services".
This is about Government/corporate control of all code development. Microsoft will be cleaning up, removing any code that is in any way controversial to their business model.
Setting up your own Github server on a Synology NAS seems the way to go while you still can.
"Oh, we've just changed the TOS so that we have a license to use all code, royalty free. Doesn't matter if you port somewhere else... it's all ours now. Too late."
That's over blowing it... but Nadella's problem is that people are already judging Micro$oft by its PAST actions. That's why everyone's going loop-de-loop.
NOBODY in their right mind would want comms software with a two-tier architecture. Are you *ffing nuts ? Man in da middle BY DESIGN.
MS' introduction of a two tier architecture for Skype turned the software into potential spy or slurpware, nobody knows since it is proprietary software.
Back to the topic: Github will follow Yammer ...
"But don't let me interupt your echo chamber."
echo chamber - that's what Micro-shaft shills do.
I'm no echo chamber. What I say is genuine. And I suspect that what most of the other people have said is genuine, too. And it's overwhelmingly similar, isn't it?
No echoing here. Just a lot of loud, genuine, 'grass roots' protests from actual GitHub users. And without the users it wouldn't be WORTH the several billion would it?
Honestly, what did you bunch of howling support-droids want to happen?
GitHub raised $100m in the first round of funding, $200m in the second round. It was losing $22m per quarter with no hope of an uptick. When you owe VCs $300,000,000 and you lose $88,000,000 per year, the only hope is acquisition. Otherwise you go broke.
So somebody had to buy it. Who did you want to buy it? Amazon? Well, it's an option but to judge from Amazon Lumberyard and other products, you could forget about deploying anywhere except AWS if they did. Did you want Google to buy it? Do No Evil? Remember, this is a company that actively closes source on its biggest projects (Android), shitcans software at an unbelievable rate and, oh yeah, reads your damn email.
Who else? Facebook? You think they're the good guys? How about Oracle?
Oracle, jesus jumping christ on a unicycle. And you're whining about Microsoft?
Where's .NET? Oh, it's on GitHub. Where's SignalR? Oh, Github. Where's Blazor? Oh look, Github. Where's every recent MS codebase? Where's VS Code? Who writes SQL Server for linux and Visual Studio for Mac? Along with a billion other open source projects and, oh yes, a linux distro.
"muh muh muh evil muh muh convicted monopolist muh Ballmer muh is it still 1992?"
No, it isn't. This was the best choice for GitHub. Suck it up.
"This was the best choice for GitHub. Suck it up."
It - or any of the others you mention - may have been the best choice for GitHub.
That doesn't make it the best choice for their users. Their problem started long ago - by putting stuff there so they came to depend on something without a revenue stream to support it. For some an in-house server would have have been a good idea, instead they accepted being subsidised by a business burning VCs' capital and as you point out, that couldn't last. Others seem to have got sucked in to having to put stuff there because of the recruiter attitude displayed by one poster in a previous thread; had GitHub not existed that whole scenario wouldn't have developed.
"the recruiter attitude"
I think, in fact, that point was made on a drift OT about LinkedIn and whether it was essential but there does seem to be a scenario where recruiters want to see candidates having published code on GitHub or similar.
This seems to reflect the situation in science where a young researcher needs to have published, preferably in a reasonably prestigious journal. That has given the journal publishers an opportunity for gouging. I think the long term solution there will be for universities and libraries to offer themselves as online publishing houses, that being the cheaper alternative to buying print journals. Perhaps there's also a need for someone, possibly the universities, to provide a pro bono equivalent for open source publication.
""muh muh muh evil muh muh convicted monopolist muh Ballmer muh is it still 1992?"
You don't have to go back to 1992 to find Microsoft doing evil -- they've not stopped, so there are plenty of examples that are squarely in the here and now.
"This was the best choice for GitHub."
If this was the best choice for Github, then Github was already doomed and is fully worthy of being abandoned.
That's easy. Here's three:
There's the Windows 10 nasties (forced telemetry and forced updates)
There's all of the scammer tricks that Microsoft pulled to try to force people into Windows 10 against their will.
There's the fact that Microsoft was one of the three companies who rammed the EME into HTML5 (the other two are Google and Netflix).
"If this was the best choice for Github, then Github was already doomed and is fully worthy of being abandoned."
I think you may have missed the point. The OP was right, Github was doomed financially without someone buying it. For the corporation and its investors it probably was the best choice.
It's entirely possible, jake. I know you hate Microsoft on principle but they do have Enterprise sales channels that GitHub certainly doesn't. In fact, GitHub doesn't need sales staff at all now. Or HR or accounting or payroll. And of course, GitHub is on AWS right now but I expect it'll soon be moved to Azure, where it can bask in free hosting and free bandwidth.
So all of GitHub's costs just went away.
Yeah, I expect it could be profitable. What do you think?
I don't hate Microsoft. I'm ambivalent, at best.
There is profitable, and then there is profitable. How long do you think it'll take GitHub to return the 7.5 billion dollars that Redmond spent on it? My guess is never. When you think about it, MS didn't actually purchase anything of value THAT THEY CAN RETAIN.
Time will tell. I'll wait. During the meanwhile, beer?
There is profitable, and then there is profitable. How long do you think it'll take GitHub to return the 7.5 billion dollars that Redmond spent on it? My guess is never. When you think about it, MS didn't actually purchase anything of value THAT THEY CAN RETAIN.
In absolute terms, MS didn't spend 7.5 billion dollars on it, not really. It's an entirely stock-based transaction at today's valuation (which is high). Now sure, they could have sold that stock instead but that would depress the market. Even so, I agree that they will almost certainly never gain 7.5bn worth of profit from GitHub but what they can gain - not necessarily will but can, depending on how they manage it - is twofold.
1. They become officially the Open Source Company. You can expect more of MS's stuff to go straight to GitHub from now on, including their IoT linux implementation and almost certainly Windows Core. Everyone here has been telling us all that Windows is doomed since Vista, hasn't happened and probably won't but it could regain some of its power that way, ironically enough. Their other software would also benefit from this approach in many ways and Nadella knows it. If he isn't sure, Scott Guthrie certainly is.
2. The competition in the tech industry right now is not AIor machine learning or even cloud computing. It's all about who has the best people. Add GitHub to LinkedIn and MS have an eagle-eye view of who's on top of their game in any given field and that, well, that probably is worth billions.
"This was the best choice for GitHub. Suck it up."
no, not the best. just the easiest, most expedient one.
When the company's owners OVERVALUE a company for the purpose of getting purchased, and the top level management gets their golden parachutes, then buyer's remorse and angry customers are the most likely outcome.
1 word: Nokia
But the VCs will get their money. Oh, yeah.
/me awaits the potential of 'MariaGit'. I can hope!
also they COULD have monetized things better, by offering various levels of premium content and services. But they really didn't, except for private hosting, as far as I could tell.
Yeah right..... the people that rammed win 10 into your PC even when you said "nay nay and thrice nay"
Or when updating the OS the other day decided to switch the verbal assistant back on....... how long was that listening to the in-company chat before it decided to speak up with "you are having trouble finding file AX-blah blah... would you like me to find it?" while I was typing in the search bar...
And as a final note, I'd love the names and addresses of all those m$ insiders who loved the win 10 UI so much that m$ made it standard... so I could go show everyone else's 'appreciation' for their hard work...
yeah I'm off to linux land...
I'm bitching because m$ had a damn good product (eventually) in windows 7, a decent UI, not too shabby in the kernal, and way more stable in use than vista or Xp had been.
And what happened? they threw all that out of the window with win8 which nobody wanted, then decided to go "You WILL have win10 whether you want it or not"
and you've no problem anymore, yay penguins yay.
Except - if I were to try to move my stuff off GitHub it woulld probably take three to four weeks, what with the outstanding pull requests. Those take time to go through in genuinely open source projects.
If you've no problem anymore - not that there was a problem outside your own head anyway - then either a) you're coding alone or b) you weren't doing anything worth doing.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019