Microsoft might buy GitHub

[debiman]

yeah, i still don't see how microsoft is in any way better than google, or the other way round.
they're just both evil quasi-monopolistic supercompanies.

[llivv]

once a git is swallowed by active directory it stays in AD, forever.

Does anyone know the difference between subsidised/employee devs and devs that donate their work?
AD does.
http://www.tech-faq.com/active-directory.html

using the mmc snapin to access the ADAM and GPOE admin object consoles
ibm built to keep track of things on that nature.

on a side note: ibm included group policy in windows95
just ask any of the top execs both companies traded with each other during that period
or do your own seach of opk based on image ultra for starters

[bedtime]

"Microsoft buys GitHub for $7.5 billion, promises to keep it independent and open."


Link: https://www.pcworld.com/article/3277615 ... llion.html

If they are trying to make make me sad, they are succeeding.

Here's what happens:

Microsoft bascially keeps it all the same at the start (first year or so), but slowly—ever so slowly—they change this and that, without bothering to tell anyone. And, almost insensibly, like rust that tarnishs beautiful metal, things turn ugly; but so slowly that nobody notices nor cares to comment about such. The changes will force people to do things the way MS wants them done, and invariably this will inhibit freedom. But they are nice things—shiny things—that people love, so they kinda need to keep using it and adapt.

An example of such?

Here:

It's just like YouTube. YouTube rocked before Google owned it; it had awesome search features and actually showed you the rating of each video without having to click on the link. The ratings system was also better (1-5 stars, as opposed to just 'like' and 'dislike'). But, Google likely found that their system was better for business and that more people would click the links if they didn't know the ratings beforehand...

I remember watching Stephen King movies on YouTube before it was owned by Google. Once Google owned it, they started (oh so slowly) putting more and more ads on those movies. It was almost like some sort of cancer that metastasizes—unknown to its host, slowly working its magic until once day you notice that it has started, it is out of control, and you are stuck with it. This started off with being just one ad. A surprise, yes. But it was just ONE ad. So, whatev's. Then it was 3 ads. Then 5. Then 30+ in a single movie. But, at least you could watch the movie. Then Google decided that it would rent/sell movies on YouTube. After this, searchihng for Stephen King movies brought up only pay versions, and they were at the very top of the search results, somehow. And then, as if by magic, all the Stephen King movies just vanished at once. It was as if they never existed. Was I imagining this? I was sure that...

[cronoik]

Freedom also means that they don't have to keep their service in a way I like it.

It's just like YouTube. YouTube rocked before Google owned it

...and especially they were burning money of their investors.

I remember watching Stephen King movies on YouTube before it was owned by Google....
This started off with being just one ad. A surprise, yes. But it was just ONE ad.

Have you ever thought about if this one add was raising enough money to pay for the servers and employees of youtube? Or if the right holders of the movie you have enjoyed were getting compensated? When you only pay for a service by watching add's you aren't a customer, you are part of the product and it is therefore up to the owner of the service to decide how much he cares about your needs.

[debiman]

Here's what happens:...

is this your personal prediction, or something that microsoft/github have actually stated?

if the former, well, no suprises there. haven't we witnessed this process a dozen times or so...

It's just like YouTube. YouTube rocked before Google owned it; ...

you're probably right to say it's gotten worse over time, but youtube never actually rocked. sorry.
the only way i can ever see of using it is parasitical (also no ads that way).

anyhow, i always prefered to get videos on my hard drive first, then watch them.
maybe because for a long time i had extremely poor internet connection.

[herpygumbo]

At least there is always sourceforge or gitlabs.

[debiman]

At least there is always sourceforge or gitlabs.

both alternatives are arguably cases of "from the frying pan into the fire".
in this thread, i have outlined the case of gitlab especially, and better (imo) alternatives.

[bedtime]

Here's what happens:...

is this your personal prediction, or something that microsoft/github have actually stated?

if the former, well, no suprises there. haven't we witnessed this process a dozen times or so...

Just my own prediction from what I've seen in the past.

Have you ever thought about if this one add was raising enough money to pay for the servers and employees of youtube? Or if the right holders of the movie you have enjoyed were getting compensated? When you only pay for a service by watching add's you aren't a customer, you are part of the product and it is therefore up to the owner of the service to decide how much he cares about your needs.

You could ask Google the same question about the unauthorized usage of Stephen King videos that they earned ad revenue from.

In any event, I've never cared about contributing to the bulge in Google's pockets; and I'm not gonna start caring now—perhaps when the bulge in my pockets gets around the same size as Google's, then I'll start to care.

[Luna Moon]

It's just like YouTube. YouTube rocked before Google owned it; it had awesome search features and actually showed you the rating of each video without having to click on the link. The ratings system was also better (1-5 stars, as opposed to just 'like' and 'dislike'). But, Google likely found that their system was better for business and that more people would click the links if they didn't know the ratings beforehand...

I agree that YouTube was better before.
We can only wait and see what will happen this time.

[Danielsan]

Until they don't begin to change Atom in Visual-something and putting their logo in this editor I am quite easy with this purchase, I mean I don't use Git but if I must to do I would prefer using gitlab...

[None1975]

Until they don't begin to change Atom in Visual-something and putting their logo in this editor I am quite easy with this purchase, I mean I don't use Git but if I must to do I would prefer using gitlab...

GitLab is not free, GitHub is.

[Wheelerof4te]

^It is reverse. GitLab is the free alternative, GitHub has always been proprietary.

[None1975]

GitHub has always been proprietary.

Much of the software that they use and contribute to is open source, while the core business value software is proprietary. More info from co-founder Tom Preston-Werner here: Open Source (Almost) Everything

[debiman]

GitLab is not free, GitHub is.

not sure where this comes from.
if you mean free as in beer: both providers have comparably powerful free options, both also have paid options.
if you mean free as in libre software: gitlab is fully free (can install on other servers), github isn't (or "almost" as you put it).

[None1975]

if you mean free as in beer: both providers have comparably powerful free options, both also have paid options.

That's exactly what I had in mind.