Rumours: Microsoft to buy github
-
I'm torn on this if anything comes of it. On the one hand, it would be hilarious to watch the mouth frothing from the anti Micro$haft zealots who use github but on the other hand, I wouldn't want to see MS go further down the rabbit hole of promoting Git.
-
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17208293
@jaloopa said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
it would be hilarious to watch the mouth frothing from the anti Micro$haft zealots
I hope MS buys Github just for this alone. The OSS wankery has gotten beyond control. Needs to stop.
@jaloopa said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
I wouldn't want to see MS go further down the rabbit hole of promoting Git.
Even if that happens, I don't think it's gonna get any worse than it already is. If anything I think MS will make things nicer.
I've also noticed that a decade or so back MS used to be cunty and OSS folks were helpful. Now it's the other way round, MS seems to be embracing a lot of stuff and the OSS fanatics are still stuck up and also they're insufferable AF.
So, please dear god, let this happen, so that I can go "You hate MS? Oh man your entire codebase is on github fuckkkkkkk omg that's evil what" to the OSS assholes. This has probably been the only acquisition I've cared about in a million years.
Even if this whole thing goes down the Nokia way, so be it. Let's start from scratch and have a new OSS culture that's not centered on sounding like a know-it-all holier than thou cunt.
-
@stillwater said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
OSS folks were helpful.
I don't remember that ever being the case
-
@jaloopa said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@stillwater said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
OSS folks were helpful.
I don't remember that ever being the case
I probably met someone who was relatively new to OSS then.
-
@jaloopa said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
I don't remember that ever being the case
I'm helpful… with the systems I make. I don't usually offer support for systems that I've had no hand in.
-
@stillwater said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@jaloopa said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@stillwater said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
OSS folks were helpful.
I don't remember that ever being the case
I probably met someone who was relatively new to OSS then.
Probably.
I remember that at the very beginning, people on OSS software forums were helpful as they want more people to use OSS software.
Things goes downhill when the idea that "OSS software don't need more users, only more contributors" became the major thought.
-
@jaloopa said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
I'm torn on this if anything comes of it. On the one hand, it would be hilarious to watch the mouth frothing from the anti Micro$haft zealots who use github but on the other hand, I wouldn't want to see MS go further down the rabbit hole of promoting Git.
They have to prepare their migration to the Linux kernel somehow
@stillwater said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
I hope MS buys Github just for this alone. The OSS wankery has gotten beyond control. Needs to stop.
I agree; O'Reilly's push for replacing "Free Software" with "Open Source" should have been nipped in the bud.
-
-
If that happens do we have to change all of our branch names every month or so?
-
@dcoder said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
I've once tried that with a Windows user. Got myself in a weird debate whether sky is red.
-
-
@stillwater said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
and have a new OSS culture that's not centered on sounding like a know-it-all holier than thou cunt
As long as people keep believing free software is morally better than commercial software, that won't happen.
-
@anonymous234 said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@stillwater said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
and have a new OSS culture that's not centered on sounding like a know-it-all holier than thou cunt
As long as people keep believing free software is morally better than commercial software, that won't happen.
If it's a bunch of programmers sitting inside a huge echochamber circlejerking with no real world consequences then who cares. But this whole "OSS is the one true way" is slowing every fucking thing down.
-
@boomzilla said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
If that happens do we have to change all of our branch names every month or so?
That happens now. It's called "Agile: we have to have a new release every sprint!"
-
@anonymous234 said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
As long as people keep believing free software is morally better than commercial software, that won't happen.
Considering that
- RMS started the free software thing because he wanted to fix a buggy printer driver, but didn't have the source code.
- I have this thread where the printer literally refuses to work, as in, refuses to print a black and white document because of a lack of cyan paint, for no reason other than them wanting to rip me off for more money. And if I had the time and expertise I could theoretically hack the driver such that the printer I paid for works as it should, but that would be illegal, even though it's basically just repairing a broken product.
yes, at least in some cases, it fucking is morally better.
-
@stillwater said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
But this whole "OSS is the one true way" is slowing every fucking thing down.
Most people are more pragmatic than that, though, and OSS has a pretty large footprint these days. I think it would be difficult to make the case that OSS in general is slowing things down.
-
@topspin There's no reason why software can't be commercial and open source (as in licensed users can edit it).
I get it, lots of commercial software does bad things. And I hate that too. But I still don't see a viable long-term business model for free software. You can't sell it (despite Stallman constantly lying and saying you can), so you rely on time donations or "alternative" business models like selling support.
For everything else, you spend effort building a product that satisfies a need, you sell it, you use the money to make a better version. I see no reason why software should be different.
-
@anonymous234 said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@topspin There's no reason why software can't be commercial and open source (as in licensed users can edit it).
I didn't say otherwise.
But I still don't see a viable long-term business model for free software. You can't sell it (despite Stallman constantly lying and saying you can),
So RedHat's existence is a lie, too.
so you rely on time donations or "alternative" business models like selling support.
Ah, you acknowledge that yourself.
It's not necessarily easy, and it might not work for everything, but nobody said that.
-
@anonymous234 said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@topspin There's no reason why software can't be commercial and open source (as in licensed users can edit it).
There's one - corporations are usually paranoid about intellectual property and trade secrets.
But I still don't see a viable long-term business model for free software.
so you rely on (...) "alternative" business models like selling support.
In other words, you don't see a viable business model except this one very viable business model that's been proven to work.
For everything else, you spend effort building a product that satisfies a need, you sell it, you use the money to make a better version. I see no reason why software should be different.
For everything else, you can buy it, disassemble it, install custom modifications, resell, and even analyze how everything works under the hood without worrying about law. If we could do the same with software, then you could argue that software is like any other product and should be treated like any other product. But we can't.
Crazy idea: a world where the law requires all drivers to be open source, but only drivers (other software can be OS if owners want, but it's not mandatory). Technicalities of legally defining driver aside, I don't see any downsides to it, neither for users nor for device manufacturers - if they're scared of publishing their trade secrets, they can always put the code on device side or in auxiliary software a layer above the driver, leaving only bare minimum in actual driver. Such minimal driver would be still extremely valuable for making custom drivers, adding features or porting to new platforms.
-
@anonymous234 said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
But I still don't see a viable long-term business model for free software.
The most successful might be where big companies pay engineers to work on Free software that they use in other stuff (look at the list of Linux kernel contributors, for example). Then other companies also use that stuff to build things.
I'm sure that wasn't what you were thinking of when you said "viable long-term business model" but different things operate differently.
-
@gąska said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
In other words, you don't see a viable business model except this one very viable business model that's been proven to work.
And yet Microsoft is a $72 billion company while Red Hat Inc, the largest company I know using that model, is worth just $1.3 billion. Which is admittedly more than I expected, but still 60x less.
Alternatively: Adobe Premiere Pro sells for US$20/month. See if you can sell OpenShot support for $20/month to anyone.
Alternetively alternatively: AutoCAD sells for $1,575.00/year. I'll let you guess how much money FreeCAD (closest free software equivalent) is making by selling support.
-
@anonymous234 said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@gąska said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
In other words, you don't see a viable business model except this one very viable business model that's been proven to work.
And yet Microsoft is a $72 billion company while Red Hat Inc, the largest company I know using that model, is worth just $1.3 billion. Which is admittedly more than I expected, but still 60x less.
How much did it cost to move those goal posts?
-
@anonymous234 said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@gąska said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
In other words, you don't see a viable business model except this one very viable business model that's been proven to work.
And yet Microsoft is a $72 billion company while Red Hat Inc, the largest company I know using that model, is worth just $1.3 billion. Which is admittedly more than I expected, but still 60x less.
I wanted to check your numbers and also compare them to other large companies, but Forbes et al. refusal to comply with GDPR made it impossible to me. But anyway, what worked for Microsoft might have not worked for Red Hat. Doing not-open-source means doing not-Linux, and who knows what userbase they'd have without Linux - maybe more, maybe less; probably less.
Alternatively: Adobe Premiere Pro sells for US$20/month. See if you can sell OpenShot support for $20/month to anyone.
Different types of software give different results with different business models. Who would have thought!
Alternetively alternatively: AutoCAD sells for $1,575.00/year. I'll let you guess how much money FreeCAD (closest free software equivalent) is making by selling support.
Does FreeCAD even offer paid support? If they do, they hide it very well. Might be a factor in their low revenue.
Look. I'm not saying free-software-and-paid-support is superior business model. I'm not even saying it's a viable business model for majority of software. I'm just making fun of you for saying something doesn't exist and immediately following it with an real world example of this something.
-
According to Bloomberg the deal has been made and will be announced tomorrow.
-
@anonymous234 FWIW, Ardour (multitrack DAW) manages to get around $10k/month in subscriptions and contributions alone, for what is basically one "full-time" paid developer (that I know of), and contributions from companies (mainly Harrison Consoles) who then leverage the code for their own Mixbus.
$10k/month is probably peanuts for his class of developer (the guy is supposedly very well versed in real-time programming, he also wrote JACK, the audio server), but the guy isn't an energetic twenty-year old, he has a family and most of all he has been doing it for well over a decade. Passion and ideals work well for a couple of years, at most, after which the abuse, the constant complaining by people who do not even contribute a single dollar, the jeering by the trolls etc. eventually take their toll and make you say "ah, fuck it". So I guess that the guy coding it is getting some other money for the project, or maybe he also has other sources of income. Let's say he does (no idea), how does "open source project on the side which you can afford to work on in your spare time for actual money, while knowing that other maintainers can carry on with the job when you can't or can't be arsed" sound like? It sounds like a real-world situation that could be interesting for lots of us. There's your business case I suppose?
-
@admiral_p there's also this guy who ripped off open source game (both idea and actual code AFAIK), made it closed source and made hundreds of millions out of it. But these are exceptions. A typical software project takes at least 5 man-years to make first release; often it's much more. If it's not making literally millions, it's not worth it. Of course we're talking about main job here, not a side project you're doing for fun, where any money at all feels like a win.
While writing this post, I remembered one more commercially successful open-source product. But it's no longer welcome here...
-
@gąska what I meant is that, for niche software, there are models that allow for open source licencing, and not necessarily they have to make millions, they simply have to be worth it for both the people coding it and their users. (Of course, on Linux, any DAW is better than none at all, but people actually stuck around, so it must have something going for it).
-
Some sites are announcing this as if it's a done deal.
-
@gąska said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
what worked for Microsoft might have not worked for Red Hat.
Specially because redhat is mostly just packaging software other people wrote for free. It's impressive how much money they've made.
-
@blakeyrat I'm just waiting for Monday to hit the US now. I hope to god this is true.
-
@stillwater I don't care whether it's true or not - I just hope that if it is, that it's not another nail in the coffin of TFS. :(
-
@sockpuppet7 that's not true, they also wrote everything the tiling manager fanatics hate.
-
@unperverted-vixen said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@stillwater I don't care whether it's true or not - I just hope that if it is, that it's not another nail in the coffin of TFS. :(
I don't think TFS is going away. If anything TFS will probably integrate with Github better (Not sure if this is already the case). I watched a video in which a PM said something along the lines of "We want to help the young OSS crowd but we also don't want to alienate people used to 'point and click' oldschool MS ways of doing things because they form a huge customer base. So the chances of TFS going away IMO seem very slim.
-
@stillwater said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
So the chances of TFS going away IMO seem very slim.
Yeah, because Microsoft definitely don't have a long history of dropping really good products or anything
-
@jaloopa said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@stillwater said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
So the chances of TFS going away IMO seem very slim.
Yeah, because Microsoft definitely don't have a long history of dropping really good products or anything
You could also go Yeah Microsoft definitely have a long history of open source adoption. I think pre-Nadella MS is dead. The new MS seems more sensible IMHO.
-
@jaloopa said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@stillwater said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
So the chances of TFS going away IMO seem very slim.
Yeah, because Microsoft definitely don't have a long history of dropping really good products or anything
There there is also this:
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@gąska said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
what worked for Microsoft might have not worked for Red Hat.
Specially because redhat is mostly just packaging software other people wrote for free. It's impressive how much money they've made.
Isn't that more of a thing where Redhat is for those who want support from Redhat while CentOS is basically the same package just without support?
-
@deadfast said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@jaloopa said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@stillwater said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
So the chances of TFS going away IMO seem very slim.
Yeah, because Microsoft definitely don't have a long history of dropping really good products or anything
There there is also this:
You've got your tenses confused.
-
-
@rhywden That's what I thought, but they somehow sell a "self-supported" version of RedHat for $349.
-
@boomzilla Yeah, but is that really worse than the current state of the git interface? (semi-
) The interface is really bloody obtuse at times about what it wants me to do, and I say that as somebody who generally prefers a cli over clickety-clicky interfaces...
-
@cvi said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
Yeah, but is that really worse than the current state of the git interface?
Git or github? Eh, I don't really know. As I've said many times before, my experience with git is actually pretty limited, though it seems inferior to other VCSes.
More importantly: IT'S JUST A DUMB JOKE
-
Guess it's official.
Microsoft to acquire GitHub for $7.5 billion - Stories
Acquisition will empower developers, accelerate GitHub’s growth and advance Microsoft services with new audiences From left: Chris Wanstrath, Github CEO and co-founder; Satya Nadella, Microsoft CEO; and Nat Friedman, Microsoft corporate vice president, Developer Services REDMOND, Wash. — June 4,...
-
@deadfast said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
There there is also this:
Embrace, extend, and extinguish - WikipediaDamn, Slashdot's leaking again. Someone tighten that up.
-
@rhywden CentOS used to be independent, I think, then it got "acquired" by Redhat and made it as their community supported distro. It's basically identical to RHEL. I suppose what the OP wanted to say is that RH makes money on software that other people wrote, often for free. That's the nature of open source though. To tell the truth, RH only started making real money when they (and others too) started pouring money into Linux development. So there's that.
-
@blakeyrat Microsoft is huge, it can handle the hate. Also, it deserves it. They've just stopped being either scummy or pathetic really. (It's not OSS, but their "you've been SCROOGLED!" campaign was
).
-
New sign up screen
Give it a year or two, we all know it's coming
-
@boomzilla Was expecting a lot more Microsoft® Git™Hub®©™
-
-
@coderpatsy Modern business model for technology companies:
- Give free services to everyone
- Collect user accounts
- Get bought by Google, Microsoft or Facebook
- Profit
Is Microsoft about to git-merge with GitHub? Rumors suggest: Yes
Microsoft has reportedly acquired GitHub
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7105443/microsoftloveslinux.0.jpg)
Embrace, extend, and extinguish - Wikipedia
