Microsoft might buy GitHub

Here you can discuss every aspect of Debian. Note: not for support requests!

Microsoft might buy GitHub

Postby Wheelerof4te » 2018-06-03 18:42

https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2018/06/mic ... ing-github

I'm surprised that no one has yet posted this. I'm not a developer, but from the looks of it, a lot of open-source software devs are pissed about this. It's natural, Microsoft has a history of ruining projects it buys out.
Not surprsingly, the article does try to play down the rumored aquisition (it's OMGUbuntu, what to expect).
The only comparable alternetive is GitLab, to which GNOME has already moved. Debian is also planing to move it's sources to GitLab.
What could be behind this decision? Does Microsoft want to wall-in the open-source devs? If so, will most projects move to more friendlier platforms such as GitLab?

EDIT: Here is how you can migrate from GitHub to GitLab:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... YOXuOg9tQI
EDIT2: It is now confirmed: click
User avatar
Wheelerof4te
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: 2015-08-30 20:14

Re: Microsoft might buy GitHub

Postby Lysander » 2018-06-03 21:52

Wheelerof4te wrote:What could be behind this decision?


I don't know, it's too early to say. But MS is getting its fingers into as many open-source pies as possible. Maybe another user has something more constructive to say, but all I can say is that this only furthers my mistrust of MS. I don't believe they care about the open-source community, they only care about furthering their own ends.
User avatar
Lysander
 
Posts: 546
Joined: 2017-02-23 10:07
Location: London

Re: Microsoft might buy GitHub

Postby HuangLao » 2018-06-04 02:16

User avatar
HuangLao
 
Posts: 449
Joined: 2015-01-27 01:31

Re: Microsoft might buy GitHub

Postby debiman » 2018-06-04 05:23

Wheelerof4te wrote:What could be behind this decision?

money?
and: Microsoft has a history of ruining projects it buys out (quoting you).

i wonder what github themselves have to say to that.
not much probably (we silently bend over and take it in the arse; the money's just too good to refuse).
at least the blog, press and leadership links on the bottom of their landing page mention nothing.
maybe they're going to pretend that "nothing's changed."

Wheelerof4te wrote:Here is how you can migrate from GitHub to GitLab:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... YOXuOg9tQI

thanks for the link!
User avatar
debiman
 
Posts: 2499
Joined: 2013-03-12 07:18

Re: Microsoft might buy GitHub

Postby Dennis99 » 2018-06-04 12:52

Dennis99
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 2012-07-24 15:02

Re: Microsoft might buy GitHub

Postby Wheelerof4te » 2018-06-04 13:16

Sold, for 7.5 bilion $
"We have been on a journey with open source, and today we are active in the open source ecosystem, we contribute to open source projects, and some of our most vibrant developer tools and frameworks are open source. When it comes to our commitment to open source, judge us by the actions we have taken in the recent past, our actions today, and in the future,” said Nadella in a blog post.

Nadella has laid out a three-point strategy for GitHub

But only one is relevant to Microsoft:
Finally, we will bring Microsoft’s developer tools and services to new audiences.

Gee, I wonder what he meant by that /s
User avatar
Wheelerof4te
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: 2015-08-30 20:14

Re: Microsoft might buy GitHub

Postby None1975 » 2018-06-04 13:53

So here are the basic laws of capitalism. Microsoft is expanding, hijacking the growing markets. Otherwise it can not be. By destroying small-scale production, capital leads to an increase in productivity of labour and to the creation of a monopoly position for the associations of big capitalists. Capitalism has triumphed all over the world, but this triumph is only the prelude to the triumph of labour over capital.
OS: Debian 9.4 / WM: Xmonad
Debian Wiki | DontBreakDebian, My config files in github
Linux User #607425
User avatar
None1975
 
Posts: 507
Joined: 2015-11-29 18:23
Location: Lithuania, Vilnius

Re: Microsoft might buy GitHub

Postby Wheelerof4te » 2018-06-04 14:08

^I'd say they are doing it just because they can. Capitalism doesn't play any major roles in that, just as Socialism didn't play any major roles in Soviet's decision making. Everybody is doing what they can because it suits their interests, one way or the other. Someone does it with money, others do it through sheer force. Those who are all-powerful can do using both.

People need to be pragmatic in today's world, because placing blame on certain ideology will give missguided, and sometimes very wrong conclusions. You just have to ask yourself: if I were a very powerful CEO of a large company, would I try to bring everything under my control? To create a Monopoly? Well, if I want to remain powerful in the long run, I would have to do it.
User avatar
Wheelerof4te
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: 2015-08-30 20:14

Re: Microsoft might buy GitHub

Postby None1975 » 2018-06-04 14:17

Wheelerof4te wrote:^I'd say they are doing it just because they can. Capitalism doesn't play any major roles in that

Do not be naive. And what is the interest of Microsoft? Altruistic? One of the world's largest companies is guided solely by the interests of profit. Control and profit. That's what matters to them. Here is the main motor of capitalism. Profits and even more profit. But the fact that the github management has downloaded is just a fact.
OS: Debian 9.4 / WM: Xmonad
Debian Wiki | DontBreakDebian, My config files in github
Linux User #607425
User avatar
None1975
 
Posts: 507
Joined: 2015-11-29 18:23
Location: Lithuania, Vilnius

Re: Microsoft might buy GitHub

Postby Wheelerof4te » 2018-06-04 14:28

Of course they are in it for the profit. When the power you yield, things you can do and your very survival is measured and supported by how much money you have, then it's natural that smart people will seek more profit.

Such system has been set up long before Capitalism arrived and morphed into Imperialism of today. Let's not be naive and pretend that Romans or ancient Egyptians lived in Capitalism. Last time I checked, even then those who had a lot of money were very powerful and thus oppressed many. Those who had nothing were in much worse position than people in 21st century.
User avatar
Wheelerof4te
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: 2015-08-30 20:14

Re: Microsoft might buy GitHub

Postby debiman » 2018-06-04 20:25

i have migrated all my stuff to gitlab.
have to do some testing, then i'll start deleting the repos on github.
i just hope to god gitlab is better than github.
User avatar
debiman
 
Posts: 2499
Joined: 2013-03-12 07:18

Re: Microsoft might buy GitHub

Postby Lysander » 2018-06-05 07:23

GNOME's moved over to Gitlab. Interesting timing.

https://www.gnome.org/news/2018/05/gnom ... -gitlab-2/

They said last year that they weren't interested in GitHub.

https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/Deve ... astructure

I wonder if they also heard anything about the deal.
User avatar
Lysander
 
Posts: 546
Joined: 2017-02-23 10:07
Location: London

Re: Microsoft might buy GitHub

Postby n_hologram » 2018-06-06 03:28

There have been a couple of interesting headlines regarding Microsoft and open-source software. One also has to consider something interesting: that in America, net neutrality dies on June 11th. I was thinking about what might happen to Github if no one intervened: would they be able to pay off ISPs to avoid slow-laned users? Surely that might kill the site. I considered that someone might buy them off for sustainability, but didn't think that it would be M$.

If open-source is in Microsoft's best interest (even if a short-term interest), it would make sense that they would want to keep Github thriving. In light of Github's scope, it would also make sense for a data-mining company to ascertain virtually all its information, too.

Since I don't actually know how Github operates its site from a $$$ side, and whether this move was a fiscally amoral or corruptive one, I'll withhold any further commentary.
bester69 wrote:There is nothing to install in linux, from time to time i go to google searching for something fresh to install in linux, but, there is nothing

the crunkbong project: scripts, operating system, the list goes on...
n_hologram
 
Posts: 433
Joined: 2013-06-16 00:10

Re: Microsoft might buy GitHub

Postby llewellen » 2018-06-06 04:06

Of course, Microsoft's motives are entirely altruistic and the expression of its deep sense of corporate and civic responsibiity for the benefit of all human kind. MS wouild never, ever set out to undermine or destroy a perceived competitor threat. That whole Netscape thing was a big fake news event. Anyway, it's not personal: it's just business. Bottom line: if MS said it, it is by definition (to put it most charitably) disingenuous.

Say, can I interest you in some oceanfront land in Nebraska?
It is not that I am mad; it's only that my head is different from yours - Diogenes of Sinope
llewellen
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 2018-04-08 05:21
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada

Re: Microsoft might buy GitHub

Postby Lysander » 2018-06-06 08:08

llewellen wrote:Of course, Microsoft's motives are entirely altruistic and the expression of its deep sense of corporate and civic responsibiity for the benefit of all human kind. MS wouild never, ever set out to undermine or destroy a perceived competitor threat. That whole Netscape thing was a big fake news event. Anyway, it's not personal: it's just business. Bottom line: if MS said it, it is by definition (to put it most charitably) disingenuous.

Say, can I interest you in some oceanfront land in Nebraska?


Has anyone seen Swapnil Bhartia's video on Youtube about this? His argument is that a lot of Linux enthusiasts haven't ever written a line of code and aren't involved in the business, so they don't have a fully-informed opinion about open-source. Secondly, he says the EEE paradigm is outdated and irrelevant: MS has embraced open-source because it's 'the future' and the best way to proceed. It can't, and doesn't have the ability, to 'extinguish' open-source.

Now, that's all very well as a theory, but would it not be pertinent to look at things historically? I echo this comment from hasufell on Canonical/Ubuntu which I think applies:

Ubuntu is a corporation driven distribution and does not care about the free software or open-source community (Greg K-H: “Ubuntu does not give back to the community“ on a kernel talk at google). While that alone is not a bad thing it completes the picture of Ubuntus goals (see bug #1 on ubuntu launchpad).

IMO, over the last few years Canonical has followed the exact same strategy of Microsoft: EEE (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish). That has shown in various ways where ubuntu has pushed technologies or created extensions (such as unity). The next step will be things like API war and might already start with the deal they have made with Valve.

Well, of course that is only guessing and I might be completely wrong.

But what is a fact is this: ubuntu has already betrayed it‘s users through their spying features and is clearly not aiming at full transparency and freedom as in free. Because of this fact people should really think if this will remain the only occurence of nastyness. History has taught us and is telling us again right now that companies with that power and attitude will not stop at such a point, but just become more subtle. Free software for them is merely a utility to build up to their own goals.

How can you trust someone who has already lied to you? What happened in Ubuntu is a very good reason to never trust them again as a whole, not just disregard a few features they provide. That would be inconsistent for people who appreciate free software and want control over what‘s happening on their computer.


https://github.com/nylira/prism-break/issues/334

Furthermore, there has been a long-term concern that MS would do this. At least as far back as 18 years ago, anyway. Eric Raymond said the following in his paper Revenge of the Hackers:

One of the threats we faced was the possibility that the term `open source' would be ``embraced and extended'' by Microsoft or other large vendors, corrupting it and losing our message. It is for this reason the Bruce Perens and I decided early on to register the term as a certification mark and tie it to the Open Source Definition (a copy of the Debian Free Software Guidelines). This would allow us to scare off potential abusers with the threat of legal action.

It eventually developed that the U.S. Patent and Trademark office would not issue a trademark for such a descriptive phrase. Fortunately, by the time we had to write off the effort to formally trademark "Open Source" a year later, the term had acquired its own momentum in the press and elsewhere. The sorts of serious abuse we feared have not (at least, not yet as of November 2000) actually materialized.


http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/homest ... 01s05.html

So no, I don't live in a basement and yes, I have only written a meagre amount of code in my time, but does that make my opinion, and people's like mine, invalid? Devs are pulling their work off Github left, right and centre. Not only this, a lot of MS's buy-out ventures have either tanked or ended up in a deterioration of quality. Of course MS want to develop, hence their interest in open-source, but it's not about extinguishing open-source but the competition. Like I said earlier, I think it's too early to call why MS have done this, but I think it's advisable, and realistic, to be cautious of their motives.
User avatar
Lysander
 
Posts: 546
Joined: 2017-02-23 10:07
Location: London

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

fashionable