On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 19:06:52 UTC, Maksim Fomin wrote:

>
> My second reaction after reading news (after shock) was to visit D forum.

Same here! I was off for a few days and found out today on GitHub [1], and then I remembered the thread header talking about GitLab. I'm skeptical to say the least. I still remember how difficult it was to use Skype after it had been bought by MS. I dunno what's behind it. Polishing up their image, trying to get the copyright for all the code on GitHub, killing off OSS, or all of the above ;)

MS have certainly missed a lot of stuff over the last couple of years, stuff that came out of or was based on the OSS community. Search engines, the success of Java, Android and the mobile phone market in general, social media etc. People will create and move to new platforms, simply because they don't like the thought of MS hosting their code (same goes for Google or Oracle). They will move to platforms made by their fellow programmers. Now, this will take some time and GitHub will do business as usual for at least a year. But the rot will set in sooner or later, I think.

[1] e.g. https://blog.github.com/2018-06-04-github-microsoft/

On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 03:53:31 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
> GitHub has not been profitable for years and is thought to have had cash reserves for only one or two more months of operations. Losing GitHub entirely overnight would have been an unmitigated disaster for the entire Open-Source community.

Of course it had to be losing money..how else would they have convinced everyone it need to be aquired? That's long term business strategy at work ;-)

> And there are fates worse than death. Imagine for a second GitHub at Google or ... *shudder* Oracle. Whatever your opinions about Microsoft, you cannot possible imagine that either of those outcomes would have been qualitatively better. In that sense Microsoft was the best of the bad options GitHub.
>

'best of the bad options'?

Now which company has done more for software development, besides Microsoft?

Mostly closed source proprietary, sure, but still...(and that's changed a lot now!)

I'm sure MS Linux will come out soon .. someone has to compete with Ubuntu.

And sure, MS stopped a lot of other developers/apps from competing ...but hey, that's business...what else can we expect (from any for-profit, shareholder company).

C# - Windows Forms - Database integration - anyone? I still program with them ;-)

If I tried doing any one of my 'windows forms apps' on any open source solution/platform, the productivity loss alone would be immense.

I also remember when I was programming DOS gui apps back in the early nineties - using Visual Basic 1.0 for DOS - it was just amazing how easy it was (even though it never caught on, cause Windows was about to become the next big thing.) Try doing those apps in Borland C....jeessseses...!

MS have done more for software developers, than anyone, in my opinion.

Now I'm not a fan of the MS cloud push at all, but for high productivity development tools and sophisticated applications, MS were always hard to beat.

That is, until Windows 8 came out.. then it all went backwards...now its all that html javascript crap! or stupid useless apps on the ms apps store - or that god awful monstrosity that VS studio has become!!  (I'm still on VS2010, using C# 4.0 and Windows Forms...and I'm not moving!)

No doubt Github will just be integrated into their overall crappy vision of their cloud future...

I hate cloud! Dump the tablet and mobile, and bring back the pc ( running Windows XP 64 bit, or course - where admin means admin!).

On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 20:00:45 UTC, Maksim Fomin wrote:
> Just as rough estimate: to support $7.5 bl valuation Microsoft must turn -$30 ml. net loss company into business generating around $750 ml. for many years. There is no way to get these money from the market. Alternatively, the project can have payoff if something is broken and Microsoft cash flows increase by $750 ml. This is more likely...

MS aims for cloud market, and github is a strategic asset there, as long as it helps the cloud business, it doesn't matter that github in isolation is not profitable. After MS takes over webdev and monopolizes the cloud market they can pull effective management again, but it will be a long way to go, but webdev being webdev can make it a little shorter. They were already kicked out of mobile market, it was reasonably unexpected, but it doesn't look like they plan to fall for it again.

> Of course it had to be losing money..how else would they have convinced everyone it need to be aquired? That's long term Now which company has done more for software development, besides Microsoft?
GNU... oh sorry, you are speaking about companies... Sun... ok, open and free software isn't really compatible with making money. Best argument why to leave GitHub if you do such kind of software.

> Mostly closed source proprietary, sure, but still...(and that's changed a lot now!)
Well, changed... you really belive them? And mind, open source doesn't imply open and free software, only vice versa. How young are you to not knowing M$ better?

> I'm sure MS Linux will come out soon .. someone has to compete with Ubuntu.
Still M$, still noone essential who will use it... and if only to make a point.

> And sure, MS stopped a lot of other developers/apps from competing ...but hey, that's business...what else can we expect (from any for-profit, shareholder company).
Up there... I wrote something of incompatible, so no not expecting anything else. Thats exactly the point.

> C# - Windows Forms - Database integration - anyone? I still program with them ;-)
>
> If I tried doing any one of my 'windows forms apps' on any open source solution/platform, the productivity loss alone would be immense.
Did you ever have the need to write something efficient? .NET is a sandbox for children and UX people. And yes I know what I'm speaking about... not only up to 4.0 what by the way should lack support and security fixes in the meantime, but as XP user you are common to.

> I hate cloud! Dump the tablet and mobile, and bring back the pc ( running Windows XP 64 bit, or course - where admin means admin!).
Let me try to correct you, you hate centralised clouds. There is another concept of cloud even it isn't that far yet. But I'm pretty sure it will once solve the dilamma that stuff can be infiltrated/bought in one big chunk. Or the one that it has to be financed by one Organisation.

BR Ralph

On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 16:12:25 UTC, RalphBa wrote:
>> Of course it had to be losing money..how else would they have convinced everyone it need to be aquired? That's long term Now which company has done more for software development, besides Microsoft?
> GNU... oh sorry, you are speaking about companies... Sun... ok, open and free software isn't really compatible with making money. Best argument why to leave GitHub if you do such kind of software.
>
>> Mostly closed source proprietary, sure, but still...(and that's changed a lot now!)
> Well, changed... you really belive them? And mind, open source doesn't imply open and free software, only vice versa. How young are you to not knowing M$ better?
>
>> I'm sure MS Linux will come out soon .. someone has to compete with Ubuntu.
> Still M$, still noone essential who will use it... and if only to make a point.
>
>> And sure, MS stopped a lot of other developers/apps from competing ...but hey, that's business...what else can we expect (from any for-profit, shareholder company).
> Up there... I wrote something of incompatible, so no not expecting anything else. Thats exactly the point.
>
>> C# - Windows Forms - Database integration - anyone? I still program with them ;-)
>>
>> If I tried doing any one of my 'windows forms apps' on any open source solution/platform, the productivity loss alone would be immense.
> Did you ever have the need to write something efficient? .NET is a sandbox for children and UX people. And yes I know what I'm speaking about... not only up to 4.0 what by the way should lack support and security fixes in the meantime, but as XP user you are common to.
>
>> I hate cloud! Dump the tablet and mobile, and bring back the pc ( running Windows XP 64 bit, or course - where admin means admin!).
> Let me try to correct you, you hate centralised clouds. There is another concept of cloud even it isn't that far yet. But I'm pretty sure it will once solve the dilamma that stuff can be infiltrated/bought in one big chunk. Or the one that it has to be financed by one Organisation.
>
> BR Ralph

Nothing wrong with the cloud.  The past few companies Ive worked for (small) have used AWS and Azure.  Not managing servers and services make it easy for small companies.   For instance we use Beanstalk, ECS, Cloudfront, RDS, ElasticCache, Lambda, SQS, and SNS at my current job.  With only 5 employees this would be a pain to deal with on own and the cost is about 1000/month for us.  Sure we could have our own servers in a datacenter but then that just brings even more headache and the cost would be more than AWS.  I agree that large companies serving vast amounts of the internet is not a good thing but the times we live in.

On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 16:12:25 UTC, RalphBa wrote:

> Did you ever have the need to write something efficient? .NET is a sandbox for children and UX people.

Oh yeah, toy applications for children like StackOverflow, Siemens NX, Solidworks, most of the Azure platform, MSSQL and Visual Studio just to name a few. Even a toy compiler like Roslyn. Don't be surprised if github will run someday on top of the .net platform. Welcome to the children playground!

On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 17:12:00 UTC, Apocalypto wrote:
> On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 16:12:25 UTC, RalphBa wrote:
>
>> Did you ever have the need to write something efficient? .NET is a sandbox for children and UX people.
>
> Oh yeah, toy applications for children like StackOverflow, Siemens NX, Solidworks, most of the Azure platform, MSSQL and Visual Studio just to name a few. Even a toy compiler like Roslyn. Don't be surprised if github will run someday on top of the .net platform. Welcome to the children playground!

This take on Microsoft is really ridiculous. I hope it's all just for fun. I've been using Linux 100% for years and it's really ridiculous seeing comments about Microsoft being some evil company. Beating competition with alternative product is everywhere...Google took over from Yahoo, Github from Rosetta and Co,  Facebook from others,...its all competition in business.

These people who complain don't usually contribute a penny to Open source. Frankly, Microsoft has done great things for the world with software. Making computers accessible to everyone... They recently came out with VS Code which is better than any existing open source alternative...even though it uses same technology as atom and bracket text editor. Really, Microsoft write high quality software... proprietary or open source. They contribute to Linux and other tools. There's the major contributor to open source.


Github is a for-profit company so of course i would expect to make profit too if I bought it. Your employer doesn't pay you with leaves. That money comes from commercialization. Developers must eat.

I think some only look at what happened during Steve Balmer's time as ceo. It was "HIS" strategy to pick on Linux. In fact, he pick on Apple too and several other competing products. Its all marketing and competition and its pretty much everywhere. Monopoly and patent registration is everywhere. I'm not saying its a good thing or bad,...Its not just Microsoft.


If you're don't trust Microsoft, you shouldn't trust any commercial company. Microsoft has changed business model too by embracing open source. In fact, their the real believers in open source now compared to those who don't think theirs money in open source.

On Tuesday, 5 June 2018 at 23:40:37 UTC, aberba wrote:

> These people who complain don't usually contribute a penny to Open source.

I dare doubt that this is true.

> Frankly, Microsoft has done great things for the world with software. Making computers accessible to everyone...

...and lock users in. Making computers accessible in terms of UI started with Xerox whose engineers later went to Apple. It was actually Apple that took computers away from the CLI high priests, but Apple machines were too expensive. MS's UIs were quite crap at the beginning, but they were clever enough to make their products available on cheaper PCs. Apple were too elitist.

[...]

> I think some only look at what happened during Steve Balmer's time as ceo. It was "HIS" strategy to pick on Linux. In fact, he pick on Apple too and several other competing products. Its all marketing and competition and its pretty much everywhere. Monopoly and patent registration is everywhere. I'm not saying its a good thing or bad,...Its not just Microsoft.

See, that's the thing. MS under Steve Balmer played really really dirty. It was completely OTT, even by dog-eat-dog business standards that, btw, most people are aware of. We know how business works. Once the trust is gone it is very hard (or nigh impossible) to get people to trust you again. MS, under Steve Balmer, relied too much on bullying, intimidation and locking users in. However, they missed a lot of developments which was their downfall. With the advent of Mac OS X, iOS and Android, people began to realize that there was a digital life beyond MS (remember when people were afraid to buy anything else but Windows PCs saying "I don't want to be trapped in the Mac world", while cursing Windows at the same time?) People don't trust MS anymore and even if they are "nice" now, who knows whether it's not just because they are no longer in a position of power ("the wolf has eaten chalk"). But that's MS's problem, not mine.

> If you're don't trust Microsoft, you shouldn't trust any commercial company. Microsoft has changed business model too by embracing open source. In fact, their the real believers in open source now compared to those who don't think theirs money in open source.

You shouldn't trust big IT companies. The names of people who have been cheated out of their software by them are legion.

On 06/03/2018 11:51 PM, Anton Fediushin wrote:
> 
> What's your opinion about that? Will you continue using GitHub?
> 

The obvious question is "Will MS use evil/strongarm shenanigans with GitHub?"

That would've been the one and only right question if this were the 90's. (And the answer probably would've been, "Duh, yes.")

But, while I am somewhat concerned about that possibility (mainly in the long term), with modern MS I think I'm really more concerned about GitHub being marred by bone-headed ideas and/or sheer ineptitude. Way I see it, that's kinda been MS's main MO the last decode or so. (Heck, their games and OS divisions can barely even count numbers. One...three-hundred sixty...one again...eight...point one...ten...)

Let's face it, evil or not, when MS touches stuff, how often do they NOT wind up damaging it one way or the other? Sometimes maybe, but not usually.

I don't think this is a "sky is falling" omen for GitHub (...although there WAS codeplex...but then again, codeplex was kinda inferior to its competitors anyway). And I don't think there will be any immediate problems (even MS isn't that stupid, and if they are...it'd take time to implement anyway).

But, based on MS record, I do think it's likely there will be some facepalm/WTF moments for GitHub users down the road. The big questions are "What?", "When?" and "Will they be promptly reverted/mitigated?"

I've always felt GitLab was better than GitHub (in large part because they're sensible enough to support self-hosting), so it's tempting to use this as a great reason to move to GitLab. I won't though, unless MS-GitHub starts doing things that irritate me. Then I probably will.

In any case, I've always thought it was absolutely sick that that even though GitHub/BitBucket/GitLab/Launchpad/etc. all provide basically the same features on top of the standard ***distributed*** version control systems, they are all completely incapable of talking to each other or acting as interchangable viewers on a single set of common project data. So much for the "distributed" in "DVCS".

What I've ALWAYS felt we needed, and even moreso now, is a tool to commoditize these "VCS Plus" services. So we can just FORCE the choice of GitHub/BitBucket/GitLab to be "Whatever frontend the user prefers", and everything gets cross-synced and interlinked, etc., and bring the "distributed" back to DVCS, rather than chaining each project to a centralized walled garden.

Keep in mind, if we had been commoditizing and decentralizing repository hosting, issue tracking, PRs, user accounts, etc. right from the start like we should've been, then this MS buyout of GitHub would've been entirely irrelevant to everyone outside GitHub itself. That's what happens with single points of failure. And the reason VCSes even went DVCS in the first place.

On 6/6/2018 10:28 PM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
> Keep in mind, if we had been commoditizing and decentralizing repository hosting, issue tracking, PRs, user accounts, etc. right from the start like we should've been, then this MS buyout of GitHub would've been entirely irrelevant to everyone outside GitHub itself. That's what happens with single points of failure. And the reason VCSes even went DVCS in the first place.

Bugzilla for issue tracking is independent of Github.