Look I get that MS has been more OSS friendly. But @github was not connected to a particular OS, dev stack, language, or anything else. MS buying @github is bad for all of us. Less independent, less free. Move to @gitlab.
I disagree - happy to put some beer down on a bet :-)
My reasoning is that MS seems to have been rapidly increasing both open and collaborative development across a ton of their products. They're also now a multiplatform player because cloud.
Java is no pinnacle of openness, I will grant that. Part of my job is fighting that. But there's no value to this acquisition and a million worries. MS isn't the evil company they used to be, but I wouldn't even be happy if Red Hat bought GH.
Github has never been open enough, either with code or protocols. You think that will get better now? You think MS isn't trying to wring more profit out of this? You think they won't influence the future of GH negatively for their benefit?
I don't believe that breaking the kinds of things you and I want from GitHub is good for their business, and as such I don't expect a drastic downturn.
I'd certainly rather a dev focused org than another sourceforge.
It could. Or it could kill it like everything else MS acquires. You want a list? Let's start with Minecraft, which is a POS C++ app now that nobody can most except through DLC channels. I'm sick of MS acquiring and killing my favorite things.
I expect Github future to be much like Hotmail's. The only question is who's going to provide the GMail alternative? One way or another we'll have no option but to trusting a software giant with own agenda to host our open source code from now on.
FYI my company acquired SourceForge in 2016 and have been improving significantly. No more bundled adware, all projects are scanned for malware, https downloads and project web hosting, & more. Big redesign just rolled out too
That's for sure. And we need to figure out the righr way to do open issues, vcs, wiki, and other protocols. We need federated issues and pull requests and merges across hosts. I'm just worried that MS is not going to be interested in enabling cross-host developer integration.
Yeah I won't defend Oracle at all. They hurt Java almost as much as they help it. But Java was never really free and it is a specific technology. Github is by definition supposed to be agnostic. How likely is that now?
I hope they do, but recent years actions point to benevolence, not malevolence. The way they kept Mojang...the responsible way they shut down CodePlex...the continuing OSSification of their own property. I think they are saving @github.
There's a possibility that MS will be a neutral or positive influence on GitHub, sure. I have not seen any evidence that's how they operate. And having GitHub tied to any company with a decent stack and OS to push seems inherently bad. Nobody wants this. Nobody.
How much control one retains in a large company depends a lot on how the executives navigate a massive change in scale and reporting requirements. It's possible to exert influence. If you want an example of a brand that thrived through acquistuion, see firebase.
You sound like an Oracle apologist, no offense intended. Yeah it could be great or it could be a nightmare. I was skeptical but cautiously optimistic about Oracle. Result has been a mixed bag. I'll move to @gitlab before I bank on the latter.
Because there is no way that GitHub was going to stay profitable, too much infrastructure costs... meanwhile Microsoft is no longer motivated to compete even on a expenses basis, so they can build more on the capitalization side of the balance sheet.
Or maybe it's an associative product. They're not making money driectly on many things they do.
Again this is about the way the product reporting structure gets managed and to who. These deals rarely start with "hey owner, we want to buy and screw up your product"
That's often because the "powers that be" don't understand how to present their work upward, as they have not had upward for years. They then receive pressure to show trajectory and give in to "easy wins" in order to be perceived to succeed. Seen this many many times
couldn't agree more, MS is not a technology company - they're a marketing company. Look at what they did to Skype, LinkedIn and just about anything else they lay their dirty hands on. This will be great of GitLab and I suspect the final push some projects will need to move.
GitHub was a commons, with an expensive restaurant on the side. Now it has a 'family restaurant' that makes money selling addictive crap food, especially to kids. The new owner has embraced many such communities in the past.
What makes you think this move is bad for the opensource community? Looking how MS contributed to make k8s better isn't that bad.
I'd be interested to hear your point of view.
Perhaps, perhaps MS has finally learned it's lesson? (I'm dreaming awake?)
That may be, and I certainly hope it is the case. But they have a track record of killing off my favorite projects or locking them down for profit. Witness Minecraft, where they destroyed the modding community so they could sell mods.
Ok that's interesting. We could build our own version of these features but obviously I'd also like to see a more permissive license on those bits. Maybe this can be the tipping point for us all to take more shared community ownership of GitLab?