Rumours: Microsoft to buy github
-
@blakeyrat said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
It's not like Subversion was bad. And it was far more suitable for having a friendly GUI attached to it, something which Git seems to sabotage by design.
("If you don't work the way open source assholes work with all the white text scrolling on black, then *fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you" - Git motto, apparently.TRUE FUCKING STORY!!
My first VCS ever was TFS. Whatever was needed worked, life went on, VCS was not a part of your life that you had to give attention, time and energy to. Fast forward a couple years and OSSy job and they were using Subversion. No problems just the basic stuff. Merges were fucky for some reasons that I don't remember now, we manually diff-checked, checkout the latest version, make changes and check the new codezzzz in. All was rosy and fine, even if the whole process was fucky. Again, VCS did not demand time and energy.
Cue in cool kid with Git mania. Convinced the management we had to move to Git. Before this I'd played around with Git and when shit really got complex I just gave up. Now it had come back and had to be used cos the cool kid convinced the powers that be Git is the best thing everzzzzzzzzz. Most folks who were made to use Git got confused and fucked up things all the time. So the cool kid decided we were all too dumb for VCS and gave us a GUI - SOURCETREE. Wow, what the fuck! The only time where a GUI tool sucked than using a CLI with arcane AF commands. That's when I really quit Git.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@boomzilla I like to think it's dead for all practical purposes
I can't afford to do that since I use it every day.
-
@stillwater said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
So the cool kid decided we were all too dumb for VCS and gave us a GUI - SOURCETREE.
BTW people who are fans of Git seem to think SourceTree is good software. The fools.
@stillwater said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
Wow, what the fuck! The only time where a GUI tool sucked than using a CLI with arcane AF commands. That's when I really quit Git.
I agree with you, SourceTree is so fucking awful it's actually worse (somehow) than Git's also-fucking-awful command line. You wouldn't even think that'd be possible, but Atlassian found a way.
The only sane way to use Git is the UI in Visual Studio or VS Code, and even they suck in a lot of ways. (And don't support the full feature set of Git, but then again nothing does because as I said above, Git seems to go out of its way to sabotage the entire concept of a GUI interface.)
There are other products out there, but GitHub's client software got really awful a few years back (I guess in all fairness I should retry it now, maybe it's better.) There's something called GitKraken which I haven't used because the pun in their name is fucking awful.
-
@blakeyrat said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
I still don't get why people (especially open source-y people) seem to think that distributed and centralized are mutually-exclusive. What does distributed give you? The ability to work offline. Well guess what? I can do that with TFS 2013+ no problem.
Is there a centralized VCS that can handle commit-then-merge? That is, you work on stuff and then commit. But if someone committed something since you last updated, your commit is saved in the repo and then there is an additional explicit merge of the two branches? Instead of doing that all in your working directory where your changes might or might not be recoverable?
-
@blakeyrat said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
There are other products out there, but GitHub's client software got really awful a few years back (I guess in all fairness I should retry it now, maybe it's better.) There's something called GitKraken which I haven't used because the pun in their name is fucking awful.
Having not many choices in this matter when it comes to using Git, I only use the Github Desktop Client. Even if it is not the best thing out there, it is definitely not sourcefuckingtree.
-
@boomzilla said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
Is there a centralized VCS that can handle commit-then-merge?
I don't know, what am I a walking software encyclopedia?
Are you trying to suggest it's impossible for a centralized VCS to do this, or...?
@boomzilla said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
Instead of doing that all in your working directory where your changes might or might not be recoverable?
One of Git's biggest misfeatures is how it shits all over your working directory when there's conflicts. So it's really easy to check in stuff with:
>>>>>>>> this is a conflict this text marker is here because GUIs are EBIL WE ARE GIT FANS <<<<<<<<<into your product and break fucking everything.
-
@blakeyrat Do you have any opinion on tower-git? It's paid and closed-source, so maybe it doesn't share the things you hate on OSS.
-
@blakeyrat said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
I don't know, what am I a walking software encyclopedia?
I don't know, what am I a mind reader?
Are you trying to suggest it's impossible for a centralized VCS to do this, or...?
Absolutely not. But I'm saying it's a critical flaw in all of them that I'm aware of. But I haven't used very many, so I'm asking. You or anyone else who knows.
@blakeyrat said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
One of Git's biggest misfeatures is how it shits all over your working directory when there's conflicts. So it's really easy to check in stuff with:
>>>>>>>> this is a conflict this text marker is here because GUIs are EBIL WE ARE GIT FANS <<<<<<<<<Huh. At least svn makes you tell it explicitly that you've resolved the conflicts before it will let you commit it.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@blakeyrat Do you have any opinion on tower-git?
I've never heard of it. So no.
@sockpuppet7 said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
It's paid and closed-source, so maybe it doesn't share the things you hate on OSS.
But the problem is that it's impossible to make a quality Git GUI because, as I've said a million times, Git goes out of its way to sabotage GUIs.
So it really doesn't matter what tower-git does. Either it supports all of Git's functionality, and is shitty because it has no choice but just show raw unparseable text to the user (aka the SourceTree model-- although that's not the only reason SourceTree is shitty), or it supports a tiny subset of Git functionality because that's all they could implement without making the GUI shitty (aka the Visual Studio/GitHub client model).
@boomzilla said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
Huh. At least svn makes you tell it explicitly that you've resolved the conflicts before it will let you commit it.
Git does too, but it doesn't bother to verify that you actually did even though it easily could. Because that might make it slightly friendly to the user, and God know we couldn't have that. Fuck users.
-
@stillwater said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
SOURCETREE. Wow, what the fuck!
Some of my coworkers are using that. They seem to constantly have problems (most recent - it keeps crashing). I'm using SmartGit. (tho I still go to the command line for some things since I haven't bothered figuring out the super-magic invokation in SG)
-
@dcon Based on their own website screenshots, both tower-git (or Git Tower I guess) and SmartGit just follow the SourceTree "design" of just adding a toolbar button for every Git CLI command.
So lazy.
If you're going to design a GUI, design a GUI! Come on, people. Say what you want about Visual Studio just recycling most of the TFS interface for their Git interface, but even that wasn't this lazy.
(SmartGit is also a GUI app in Java, which instantly disqualifies it from being good.)
-
@boomzilla said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
Is there a centralized VCS that can handle commit-then-merge? That is, you work on stuff and then commit. But if someone committed something since you last updated, your commit is saved in the repo and then there is an additional explicit merge of the two branches? Instead of doing that all in your working directory where your changes might or might not be recoverable?
In TFS you can stash a change before committing if you're worried, but I don't really see the problem. If there are any conflicts they get flagged up and need to be resolved before the commit goes through
-
@jaloopa said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@boomzilla said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
Is there a centralized VCS that can handle commit-then-merge? That is, you work on stuff and then commit. But if someone committed something since you last updated, your commit is saved in the repo and then there is an additional explicit merge of the two branches? Instead of doing that all in your working directory where your changes might or might not be recoverable?
In TFS you can stash a change before committing if you're worried, but I don't really see the problem. If there are any conflicts they get flagged up and need to be resolved before the commit goes through
IOW: no.
-
@blakeyrat said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
SmartGit is also a GUI app in Java
The evangelism is strong with this one.
-
@jaloopa
Didn't you know that VS is copying your code to MS since Source Safe?
-
One of my coworkers uses Tortoise-git. I don't know if it's because he got used to svn before, or he couldn't stand sourcetree and this was the first thing he found.
I walked to his desk the other day to ask about something. We couldn't find code we were talking about, so I tell him to switch to a branch that has it for sure.
>click<
[window pops up]
>click< >click<>click<
Aha, I'm on this branch.
>click<
[window pops up]
>click<
[window pops up]
>click< [close a window]
>click< [close a window]
>click<>click<>click<>click< [go to directory in windows fucking explorer]
>click<
>click<
>click<
>click<>click<>click<>click<>click<>click<
There, I have it.OMFG, this is worse than git cli and sourcetree combined.
-
The concerns over Microsoft outright stealing code are mostly groundless.
I mean:-
open source software cannot be stolen by definition;
-
the value of code isn't really in the individual ideas, and if there really is a groundbreaking algorithm or whatever that is truly gamechanging and a million other buzzwords, I strongly doubt it's going to be hosted on
the cloudsomebody else's computer. No, really, the value of code is putting it together, and that means that stealing, let's say, well written, private, proprietary source code will mean at least having to refactor the stuff well enough to avoid any lawsuits, and it gets to a point where it is probably not worth the effort, especially because: -
Microsoft employs a fucking army of developers, some of them at the top of their game. What need do they have of actually stealing code, exposing themselves to dangerous lawsuits? All right, they're huge and they can afford lawyers, but my bet is that any company hosting code on Github that has code which is interesting enough to be stolen will also have the motivation and the means to initiate a lawsuit, which can then realistically be settled out of court. Furthermore, the reputational damage would be huge. That doesn't necessarily count, but that means basically throwing all the good will they have started to build up out of the window, and never, ever, ever be trusted again.
Is it impossible? No, it isn't. I fully understand companies hosting sensitive code on Github to move to alternative solutions, and that would be simple risk mitigation. Apparently there has also been at least an instance of open source code being reused by Microsoft without any attribution of the original source. (This particular instance seems to be on the course to be resolved). But these fears are exaggerated really. It's more that Microsoft may make Github a less attractive place for a certain kind of developer to work on, for example strongly integrating with Microsoft solutions and stuff (which wouldn't be taken well by a large part of the devs on Github).
@blakeyrat said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@stillwater said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@anonymous234 What's the general consensus on Mr. Linus Torvalds around these parts? Personally he seems like he knows his stuff and all that but I would never go for a beer with that guy. Looks very snobbish and probably interrupts you when you're talking.
He's a gigantic asshole and only tolerated (worshipped, really, by other open source developers who are gigantic assholes) because he's "so good at software development".
Even though the two biggest projects in his name are Linux and Git, which both kind of suck. Being in charge of the third runner-up OS I guess has a lot of cachet in the open source community, go figure.
(People seem to think that Linux is so widely-used because it's good and not, as reality would have it, because it's dirt-cheap to make 50,000 copies of, if you don't consider labor costs.)
(People seem to think Git is good because... uh. I have no idea. They were all hit on the head as a child?)
Linus Torvalds is an asshole, maybe, but the kind of asshole that makes you go "well, somebody has to be". Mostly because he's usually right or at least he has a point.
As for Linux sucking, why so? Apart from the fact that it is not the third runner-up OS (kernel, really, if we're talking about Linus Torvalds) if you count the embedded and mobile industry, and it also runs on a large proportion of servers worldwide, and apart from the fact that any modern, well-supported OS is OK more than good enough really (and I'd like to know how Linux sucks compared to both Windows and macOS), but the cheapness of it doesn't explain why, when the mobile industry was a tenth of what it is today, and there could have been ways for other OSs to thrive, none based on, for example, FreeBSD or whatever ever made it.
Why did Google (or Rubin before Google) choose Linux as a base for Android and not any other OS? Why didn't Google switch away from Linux when it bought Android (keep the userland, scrap the kernel)? I mean, in 2018, but also in 2012, choosing something other than Linux makes no sense (due to the support of the industry), but at the start Linux and the BSDs were pretty much comparable in the mobile/embedded sector.
-
-
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
open source software cannot be stolen by definition;
GitHub hosts tons of private repositories, you realize. Which seems to invalidate your entire post, but I admit I'm not going to read it all.
(For the record, so does Visual Studio Online, and Microsoft's never been accused of stealing or looking at code there, so...)
-
This post is deleted!
-
@blakeyrat You could have read the very following point. Instead, you're a daft twat...?
-
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
Linus Torvalds is an asshole, maybe, but the kind of asshole that makes you go "well, somebody has to be".
That is @blakeyrat in a sentence.
-
@blakeyrat said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
There's also Mercurial which from what I understand is like "Git, but not as awful". But nobody uses it
I use Mercurial at work. It's exactly like Git, except you don't fuck up your repo every five minutes. And it has actual branches.
-
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
Linus Torvalds is an asshole, maybe, but the kind of asshole that makes you go "well, somebody has to be". Mostly because he's usually right or at least he has a point.
You can be right and have a point and communicate it effectively without being an asshole. Millions of people do that every day.
Linus is an asshole because:
- He was born an asshole
- He knows he can get away with it, because he's surrounded at all times by sycophants
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
As for Linux sucking, why so?
When the GPU driver in my Windows PC has a problem, my screen blanks for half a second and then everything's back working fine again. Linux has trouble dealing with GPU drivers even when simple supported things like "the computer goes to sleep" happen. I mean that's just one of a million examples.
Its idiotic decision to stick with POSIX, a truly terrible standard which isn't even needed for compatibility anymore because the system it defines compatibility with doesn't even (practically) exist anymore. It's bad decisions to maintain a huge separation between the kernel and anything GUI-related, making simple things like "creating a secure lock screen" nearly nightmarish to implement correctly. Etc.
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
Apart from the fact that it is not the third runner-up OS (kernel, really, if we're talking about Linus Torvalds)
It is by my measure.
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
if you count the embedded and mobile industry, and it also runs on a large proportion of servers worldwide,
That's because it's cheap, not because it's good.
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
and apart from the fact that any modern, well-supported OS is OK more than good enough really
Bullshit. I just gave a bunch of examples of things the Linux kernel does worse than competing OS kernels.
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
but the cheapness of it doesn't explain why, when the mobile industry was a tenth of what it is today, and there could have been ways for other OSs to thrive, none based on, for example, FreeBSD or whatever ever made it.
Darwin did ok.
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
Why did Google (or Rubin before Google) choose Linux as a base for Android and not any other OS?
Because Android was obviously designed by techy techy people who idolize the computers of 1987 and have zero idea what a usable system looks like? The exact kind of person who would worship Linux.
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
Why didn't Google switch away from Linux when it bought Android (keep the userland, scrap the kernel)?
I dunno; ask them.
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
I mean, in 2018, but also in 2012, choosing something other than Linux makes no sense (due to the support of the industry), but at the start Linux and the BSDs were pretty much comparable in the mobile/embedded sector.
Ok. The thing is: the BSDs are shitty in exactly the same ways Linux is shitty (and cheap in exactly the same way Linux is cheap) so from my perspective I don't see a (practical) distinction between the two. Now if, say, BeOS were in the running or something, that'd be different.
-
@blakeyrat the decision to stick with POSIX descends from its decision to follow in the footsteps of Unix, which was far from being non-existent when Linux was first developed (and for the following ten years or so). Furthermore, being Unix-y helped it gain the momentum it had and it still has because, whether you like it or not, Unix-like OSs are popular, especially with the people who develop it. (Real-world considerations, eh?). When Linux people do "not Unix-y" things, people complain (eg. systemd). Is it because of heritage, or because of whatever, it's not up to me to say. Linux's problems with GUIs descend from the fact that desktop Linux is an afterthought (in general, desktop Unix with the exception of macOS, which has been explicitly optimised for that use case). If desktop Linux were a higher priority, its issues would have been sorted out years ago.
Windows by the way has all sorts of usability issues of its own, and from a technical point it's not so uncommon to need to do practically magic dances to make stuff work. (An example, Windows not recognising my GPU even though the drivers were properly installed and everything, insisting in it being a generic VGA. In the end, I had to uninstall the drivers, reboot, manually point the Device Information thingy - not sure if that's its name in English - to the driver directory, make it find the drivers by itself even though I had installed them through the bespoke installer, and finally manage to have resolutions higher than whatever they were, something like 1920x1080. Oh, and it couldn't find the drivers online even though that's the recommended choice).
As an aside: usability in general is pie in the sky material, by the way. (That doesn't mean you have to make them arcane). Computers are an inherently unnatural interface. The only way you can make computers generally usable is to provide them with good AIs and drive them with voice assistants, so that they respond like humans do and they do stuff for you. (I actually think that the Bixby concept had some merit, for example). And still, my mum has huge difficulty dealing with the concept of WhatsApp messages. That I have no solution for.
As for being surrounded by sycophants, you don't get to be surrounded by sycophants if there you have no merit and no charisma. In Linus's case, more merit than charisma I suspect.
-
@luhmann said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@ben_lubar said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
Fun fact: gamers are from a different planet, but not the same different planet as IT professionals.
At least there is no overlap with the planet where women are from
Then how do you explain my wife, who spends as much time playing video games as I do?
-
It's been a long time since I've seen a serious OS flamewar.
-
@gąska But these days we have a realistic expectation of an open-source kernel taking over the desktop.
when MS open source the NT kernel
-
@gąska To be honest, I'm not arguing over the merits of the OSs. I admit I'm more at ease on Linux than on Windows, but I have neither the will, nor the real expertise to do so. I frankly find it pointless anyway, because you can get work done on any OS, provided the tools are available. The only reason graphic designers do not even consider using Linux is that there is no Adobe suite on Linux. It's not the '90s anymore and they're all good enough, each with their specific pain points. If we want something better, I guess it won't be either Windows, Linux or macOS, but it will have to be something else entirely, built from the ground up to actually be better and fuck backwards compatibility. That means it will never happen. If the shift to OS X had happened today, maybe (just maybe) it could have happened, instead the respective ecosystems (god I hate that word) are too big.
-
@admiral_p You're wrong because my bluetooth phone didn't work with my shitty Ubuntu system. It's far from good enough.
-
@sockpuppet7 yeah, and my beloved Echo FireWire audio interface doesn't work either on Linux, but whose fault is it?
-
-
@masonwheeler said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@luhmann said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@ben_lubar said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
Fun fact: gamers are from a different planet, but not the same different planet as IT professionals.
At least there is no overlap with the planet where women are from
Then how do you explain my wife, who spends as much time playing video games as I do?
-
-
@masonwheeler You should know better than to ask questions that you don't want answered.
-
@boomzilla fair enough...
-
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
I frankly find it pointless anyway, because you can get work done on any OS, provided the tools are available.
This is why we can't have nice things. Too many people are okay with absolutely abhorrent software. This creates environment where no one tries to make software even the least bit usable. "It technically works; you just have to be patient with restarting! Remember to double check your switches or it'll wipe out your hard drive!"
We can do better. We can do much better than that. But not until we demand better. Being okay with shitty software is the root cause of shitty software. Everyone who gets used to Git quirks is directly responsible for Git being horrible. Everyone who gets used to Windows Update shittery is directly responsible for Windows Update shittery. Stop this madness! Demand better software!
-
@blakeyrat said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
You can be right and have a point and communicate it effectively without being an asshole
Have you considered trying that?
-
@gąska I can demand all I want. But somebody has to listen. If it's commercial software, you can only hope they listen. If it's open source software, you can only hope that your issues with the software are sufficiently shared that somebody rises up to the task (because I can't code well enough). So you live with what you have. Plus, what is abhorrent? Is vi(m) abhorrent? I honestly feel nauseated just by the idea of learning to use it. But it's one of the most popular editors around and you can have all sorts of fancy IDEs, vim still gets used a lot. And don't tell me it's because it works well in the terminal, because that's a reaaaally minor obstacle.
Ironically, git was born out of Linus Torvalds' frustration with existing CVS solutions.
-
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@gąska I can demand all I want. But somebody has to listen.
That's why I think unionizing programmers might be a good thing. At least for the first 20 years, like all unions.
-
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@blakeyrat the decision to stick with POSIX descends from its decision to follow in the footsteps of Unix, which was far from being non-existent when Linux was first developed (and for the following ten years or so).
Right; but if you look at a calendar you may be surprised to learn it's 2018.
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
Furthermore, being Unix-y helped it gain the momentum it had and it still has because, whether you like it or not, Unix-like OSs are popular, especially with the people who develop it.
Because they're cheap. Cheap things are popular.
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
When Linux people do "not Unix-y" things, people complain (eg. systemd).
Which is stupid, because systemd was just bringing Linux service management up to minimal Windows 2000 levels.
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
Is it because of heritage, or because of whatever, it's not up to me to say.
It certainly seems like most Linux developers want computers to stay in 1986 forever.
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
Linux's problems with GUIs descend from the fact that desktop Linux is an afterthought (in general, desktop Unix with the exception of macOS, which has been explicitly optimised for that use case).
Right; but at the same time Linux users say it's great because it's more secure than Windows. However, it has zero provision for displaying a secure GUI. Not even the simple case of locking the screen!
To be fair, Linux developers realize this is an issue and the X11 replacements behave much better. But it's still ridiculous that the "secure" Linux OS is just now gaining security features that were old-hat in Windows NT4.
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
If desktop Linux were a higher priority, its issues would have been sorted out years ago.
Like I said, "desktop Linux" may not have been a priority, but (according to its fans) "secure Linux" was. So why did it lack such a crucial security feature for decades?
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
Windows by the way has all sorts of usability issues of its own,
If someone says Linux is bad, they therefore must think Windows is perfect! It's UNPOSSIBLE for someone to think both Linux and Windows kind of suck!
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
As an aside: usability in general is pie in the sky material, by the way.
I'm not sure what that means.
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
Computers are an inherently unnatural interface.
Only if they're designed by people who completely discard capabilities the human brain is really really good with, such as spatial memory. Oh, and look, modern GUI designers do exactly that!
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
The only way you can make computers generally usable is to provide them with good AIs and drive them with voice assistants, so that they respond like humans do and they do stuff for you.
Even if this were true (and I don't believe for a second it is), all I'm asking is for the level of usability we had on our 1998 Macintosh computers. I'm not asking for miracles, just for things to stop getting worse year over year.
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
(I actually think that the Bixby concept had some merit, for example).
I thought it was just a ripoff of Siri.
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
As for being surrounded by sycophants, you don't get to be surrounded by sycophants if there you have no merit and no charisma. In Linus's case, more merit than charisma I suspect.
Well unlike most of his fans and peers, he does shower daily. #cheap shot
-
@admiral_p also. You can do your job while being very vocal about hating your job. Look at all the SJW activists!
-
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
The only reason graphic designers do not even consider using Linux is that there is no Adobe suite on Linux.
That's not close to the only reason. Even if Adobe suite was on Linux, is color calibration on Linux? Can Linux talk to wide-format printers? In CMYK? Etc.
Professional printing was on MacOS so long not because Adobe made software for it (on the contrary; they were an also-ran for a long time compared to Quark Xpress), but because MacOS was the first computer system that could talk to and control laser printers, was the first computer system that allowed millions of colors on-screen at once, was the first computer system that included color-calibration tools built-in to the OS itself, high-resolution first-party monitors, etc.
Once Microsoft got those capabilities, sure, people began to switch over. But it's not just arbitrary preference that put MacOS there in the first place: it got used for the task because it was the best at it, for a long time.
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
It's not the '90s anymore and they're all good enough, each with their specific pain points.
Try editing a 60-second commercial on Linux. There ain't any product on Linux that's "good enough" to edit video.
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
If we want something better, I guess it won't be either Windows, Linux or macOS, but it will have to be something else entirely, built from the ground up to actually be better and fuck backwards compatibility.
I'd like to see someone go back to the drawing board.
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
If the shift to OS X had happened today, maybe (just maybe) it could have happened, instead the respective ecosystems (god I hate that word) are too big.
The problem is: OS X sucks compared to the OS Apple had before. OS X is when they switched from selling based on having a superior product (which, sadly, was not a very successful strategy) to selling based on being the most yuppie thing possible.
-
@gąska said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
We can do better. We can do much better than that. But not until we demand better
Better cost money. Windows is already too expensive for me.
-
@blakeyrat you well know that it's a chicken and egg problem, though. If there were a serious interest by the industry to move onto Linux it would have happened. But the world works on money, and the truth is that there is no incentive for companies to do so. Audio, for example, is somewhat feasible because there was somebody there happened to be somebody who had a personal interest to use Linux professionally (hence, JACK). And Bitwig Studio on Linux has some market share but I guess just because "why not". I think it's built in Java and they only have to interface with JACK to work.
-
@gąska said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
I frankly find it pointless anyway, because you can get work done on any OS, provided the tools are available.
This is why we can't have nice things. Too many people are okay with absolutely abhorrent software. This creates environment where no one tries to make software even the least bit usable. "It technically works; you just have to be patient with restarting! Remember to double check your switches or it'll wipe out your hard drive!"
We can do better. We can do much better than that. But not until we demand better. Being okay with shitty software is the root cause of shitty software. Everyone who gets used to Git quirks is directly responsible for Git being horrible. Everyone who gets used to Windows Update shittery is directly responsible for Windows Update shittery. Stop this madness! Demand better software!
alt confirmed!
-
@admiral_p said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
Ironically, git was born out of Linus Torvalds' frustration with existing CVS solutions.
No, it was born out of a big personal snit between some big dev on the Linux project (not Linus) and the creator of the VCS they were using, that escalated until the Linux folks got their access revoked. And because Linux's development is so weird and unique, no other existing products were suitable, so Linus had to roll his own VCS that would fit the Linux development model. (Which turns out to be a very bad fit for most other software development, because it was made specifically for a project that isn't developed like most other software!)
-
What are these usability issues that y'all think windows has?
-
@masonwheeler said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
And because Linux's development is so weird and unique, no other existing products were suitable,
TFS could have done it, natch. But of course Linus would never use that.
-
Also everytime I've gone "Hey would you be happier if the company gave you a mac instead?" to someone using Ubuntu the answer was always a Yes. If people had money and they wanted unix-y things they're getting a goddamn macbook and use it, not stick with Ubuntu.
-
@blakeyrat said in Rumours: Microsoft to buy github:
FS could have done it, natch. But of course Linus would never use that.
Linus even remotely playing with TFS would cause the universe to implode. UNPOSSIBLEEEE!
