Author Topic: Microsoft to buy GitHub in $7.5B all-stock deal (Read 52,142 times)

anandcoral · « **Reply #25 on:** June 06, 2018, 02:45 PM »

Quote from: mouser on June 04, 2018, 04:51 PM

I don't understand how business works

I agree with Mouser.

Even after so many discussion, I too do not understand MS intention. Only am afraid, as I was for FoxPro, which came true.

Regards,

Anand

Deozaan · « **Reply #26 on:** June 06, 2018, 04:30 PM »

Quote from: Jibz on June 06, 2018, 02:13 PM

Just read an article about why GitHub is worth that kind of money to Microsoft here:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-06/github-is-microsoft-s-7-5-billion-undo-button

Eh... If you count this throw-away line as explaining why it is worth that much money:

Quote from: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-06/github-is-microsoft-s-7-5-billion-undo-button

Enter GitHub in 2008. GitHub makes it easier for large, loosely coordinated groups of programmers—in corporations, for instance—to use git. It has a well-designed web interface. If you don’t think that’s worth $7.5 billion, you’ve never read the git manual.

Personally, I'm not satisfied with that answer. But then again, I've never read the git manual.

Dormouse · « **Reply #27 on:** June 06, 2018, 06:55 PM »

Quote from: mouser on June 04, 2018, 04:51 PM

I don't understand how business works

Simples.
MS think GitHub is worth more than $7.5bn if they control it.
GitHub owners think it is worth less.
Neither share their ideas about valuation, but both think their lot is improved by the sale.

Whether either has any sense is another matter. And who is right can only be known in the fullness of time.

I've not seen a single comment anywhere giving a calculated value, so I doubt if anyone knows.

wraith808 · « **Reply #28 on:** June 06, 2018, 11:09 PM »

Quote from: Tuxman on June 06, 2018, 07:47 AM

Gitlab runs on Microsoft Azure.
https://twitter.com/EdgarSanchez/status/1004087778760646656

Thanks for that. Gave me a laugh on a day when I needed one...

Deozaan · « **Reply #29 on:** June 07, 2018, 12:30 AM »

Here's another good one:

https://twitter.com/ViktorKalmar1/status/1004157540224131072

f0dder · « **Reply #30 on:** July 15, 2018, 09:20 PM »

Quote from: Tuxman on June 04, 2018, 06:56 PM

(Although I wonder why most people ignore the fact that they are mad about their preferred "DVCS" hoster being bought... Git's target audience does not seem to be the brightest of all.)

Are you implying they're silly because "it's DVCS, they can just move elsewhere"?

In that case, please keep in mind that the repository hosting is the smallest part of what GitHub offers - it's all the stuff built on top and around that makes it worthwhile.

Quote from: Tuxman on June 05, 2018, 05:57 AM

Also, many projects and even programming languages (talking to you, Go!) natively integrate GitHub as their package repository. That means that not only the official source would be gone for a while - large parts of the software world wouldn't even compile anymore. That's a bad sign.

Same goes for the JVM world and the main maven repository, the node.js hipsters and npm, et cetera.

Is there any language/ecosystem that has a nice package repository without a single point of failure?

Tuxman · « **Reply #31 on:** July 15, 2018, 09:33 PM »

Quote from: f0dder on July 15, 2018, 09:20 PM

Are you implying they're silly because "it's DVCS, they can just move elsewhere"?

I am implying that the hostname of the upstream DVCS repository does not matter to anyone who even remotely understands his shiny plaything.

Quote from: f0dder on July 15, 2018, 09:20 PM

In that case, please keep in mind that the repository hosting is the smallest part of what GitHub offers - it's all the stuff built on top and around that makes it worthwhile.

Like what? The issue tracker? Indeed, it is a rather dumb idea to sacrifice yourself to voluntary vendor lock-in - but that's not Microsoft's fault at all. As if Microsoft would endanger your precious bug reports...

Quote from: f0dder on July 15, 2018, 09:20 PM

Same goes for the JVM world and the main maven repository, the node.js hipsters and npm, et cetera.

Agree.

Quote from: f0dder on July 15, 2018, 09:20 PM

Is there any language/ecosystem that has a nice package repository without a single point of failure?

Every centralized repository is a single point of failure. IMO, the sanest approach is C's: You'll just get your headers/libs from your OS vendor.

f0dder · « **Reply #32 on:** July 15, 2018, 09:56 PM »

Quote from: Tuxman on July 15, 2018, 09:33 PM

I am implying that the hostname of the upstream DVCS repository does not matter to anyone who even remotely understands his shiny plaything.

Yes, this detail doesn't matter that much - there's an inconvenience in getting all the references fixed, and that's it. That you're suggesting this is the issue is silly, though, since it's really about #2.

Quote from: Tuxman on July 15, 2018, 09:33 PM

Like what? The issue tracker? Indeed, it is a rather dumb idea to sacrifice yourself to voluntary vendor lock-in - but that's not Microsoft's fault at all. As if Microsoft would endanger your precious bug reports...

Issue tracker, pull requests, wiki, github pages, discoverability, the social aspect. The integrated two-factor auth stuff... teams... stats... the commercial support... access control... vulnerability scanning... GitHub is a really well-working and polished product. It gives you loads of features you don't get with a bare "just a file storage bucket" repository.

You can't avoid vendor lock-in unless you go for an on-premise solution. It's been a while since I checked out GitLab (but they do both cloud and on-prem, right?) - but I've worked a fair bit with Atlassians Stash/BitBucket. It can run on-prem, but it's not open-source, and while it's a good product, it's lagging quite a bit behind what GitHub offers.

And sure, Git is a DVCS. But in and by itself it's not super effective for collaboration, especially when you're outside a single team or company... you need an additional layer on top of the raw DVCS. If everybody runs different systems, collaboration gets harder.

Quote from: Tuxman on July 15, 2018, 09:33 PM

Every centralized repository is a single point of failure. IMO, the sanest approach is C's: You'll just get your headers/libs from your OS vendor.

You've got to be joking.

There's so much wrong with this idea that I don't even know where to start - that'll be for tomorrow

Tuxman · « **Reply #33 on:** July 15, 2018, 09:58 PM »

If you absolutely don't want to self-host your stuff, you will be surprised how evil all companies are when it comes to making money ...

Atlassian makes absolutely awesome software IMO.

And no - I'm never joking!

Shades · « **Reply #34 on:** July 16, 2018, 03:17 AM »

Quote from: f0dder on July 15, 2018, 09:56 PM

It's been a while since I checked out GitLab (but they do both cloud and on-prem, right?)

@f0dder:
Yes in both cases. Last Friday I started running a docker image of GitLab (Community Edition) on a test server in my own network, just to see for myself what the fuss is about. So far it leaves a good impression, but you can expect to lose quite some time configuring it. The enterprise edition has more features, so that will be even more "fun".

Although it is more work, I would recommend to do a GitLab installation from the ground up. The Docker solution (or similar software) is decent, but I barely see how Docker is helping me for my particular use-cases.

In any case, GitLab does work on-premise. Documentation is handled well. As far as I have seen it at least. But don't expect it to run on a Windows server any time soon, if at all. It looks like it will be a Linux and MacOS only product. On my Ubuntu Server 18.04 LTS computer it works fine. The Docker website indicates that there is a 'Docker for Windows' application available (which doesn't work on Windows Server 2012 R2), but that it not officially supported. And if you do have 'Docker for Windows' running on your system, the GitLab website says that they will not support GitLab with that software anyway. In short, if you want to run GitLab on Windows, you are on your own.

f0dder · « **Reply #35 on:** July 16, 2018, 05:07 PM »

Quote from: Shades on July 16, 2018, 03:17 AM

Although it is more work, I would recommend to do a GitLab installation from the ground up. The Docker solution (or similar software) is decent, but I barely see how Docker is helping me for my particular use-cases.

Docker is pretty great, even if you don't plan to use it for scaling out. All setup and configuration is codified, so you don't miss a point in an install step, and getting an instance up and running is fast. The isolation it offers is pretty good as well - not as good as a full-blown VM, of course, but because of how lightweight it is, you can afford to containerize pretty much all the services you have running on a single machine.

And there's lots of other nice uses for it. Like, being able to create a Linux filesystem image (think custom RaspBerry Pi or custom device firmware) from a Windows or macOS machine, without booting up a VM and transferring files in and out of that. Or making sure everybody on the team has a similar runtime dev env for testing, regardless of host OS. Or being able to build <whatever_language>*<whatever_version> binaries without drowning in dependency hell on a single host OS.

While Docker for Windows is great for development work, I wouldn't run production stuff on it - it's simply not ready for that kind of prime-time yet. There's performance issues as well as bugs... we have a customer who insists on running stuff on Windows servers (because that's what their hosting company knows, and they use that hosting company because the CEOs are buddy-bros) - we have to restart the stuff because the current stable version has a bad leak in vpnkit. Ouch.

wraith808 · « **Reply #36 on:** January 12, 2019, 06:01 PM »

So, a new development on this story:

from https://blog.github.com/2019-01-07-new-year-new-github/ via https://www.engadget.com/2019/01/07/all-github-users-keep-code-private/

Quote

Historically, if you've wanted to create a private repository on GitHub, you had to be a paying user, but that's about to change. Starting today, free GitHub users will have access to unlimited private projects as long as there are three or fewer collaborators on board. For larger projects, you'll have to join a paid plan or make your code public, as GitHub isn't changing how it manages public repositories.

Tuxman · « **Reply #37 on:** January 12, 2019, 06:07 PM »

Years after everyone who needed that had already joined the superior Bitbucket.

Tuxman · « **Reply #38 on:** January 10, 2022, 03:27 AM »

Anyone here still using GitHub?
Enjoy losing access just because they don't like your commits.

Deozaan · « **Reply #39 on:** January 10, 2022, 07:29 AM »

Quote from: Tuxman on January 10, 2022, 03:27 AM

Anyone here still using GitHub?
Enjoy losing access just because they don't like your commits.

Hopefully that guy, who intentionally sabotaged his code that thousands of other projects were dependent on, was using git "the right way" and has local/backup copies of all his repositories elsewhere. Also, hopefully he gets the mental help he needs.

Tuxman · « **Reply #40 on:** January 10, 2022, 11:31 AM »

I don’t think that the number of external projects which use your code should be relevant metrics for you to decide about the future of your code.

wraith808 · « **Reply #41 on:** January 10, 2022, 01:48 PM »

Quote from: Tuxman on January 10, 2022, 03:27 AM

Anyone here still using GitHub?
Enjoy losing access just because they don't like your commits.

From what I read, he posted malicious code to his repo. Is that correct? And Microsoft suspended his account for that?

https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/9/22874949/developer-corrupts-open-source-libraries-projects-affected

Seems legit if this is the case. And this is one of the reasons I fork repos that I use rather than just using them.

Tuxman · « **Reply #42 on:** January 10, 2022, 02:07 PM »

Quote from: wraith808 on January 10, 2022, 01:48 PM

From what I read, he posted malicious code to his repo. Is that correct?

He committed code that did not work as expected into his own repositories containing his own free code.

Why exactly is Microsoft entitled to deny that?

wraith808 · « **Reply #43 on:** January 10, 2022, 05:08 PM »

Quote from: Tuxman on January 10, 2022, 02:07 PM

Quote from: wraith808 on January 10, 2022, 01:48 PM
From what I read, he posted malicious code to his repo. Is that correct?

He committed code that did not work as expected into his own repositories containing his own free code.

Why exactly is Microsoft entitled to deny that?

Because if something is checked into a repo that is obviously wrong, it can be construed as a compromise of the account, resulting in the locking of the account. It's a security measure until it can be verified. Just as it's inconvenient if I'm using my credit card and something is determined that it might be fraud and I have to verify it. It's annoying, but in the end, in the case that someone does hack the account, I'd consider it useful.

Tuxman · « **Reply #44 on:** January 10, 2022, 05:22 PM »

Quote from: wraith808 on January 10, 2022, 05:08 PM

Because if something is checked into a repo that is obviously wrong, it can be construed as a compromise of the account, resulting in the locking of the account.

So Microsoft (I will not say anything about Windows Me here... or should I?) has decided that you must not check in obviously wrong code into your own repositories?

wraith808 · « **Reply #45 on:** January 10, 2022, 05:54 PM »

Quote from: Tuxman on January 10, 2022, 05:22 PM

Quote from: wraith808 on January 10, 2022, 05:08 PM
Because if something is checked into a repo that is obviously wrong, it can be construed as a compromise of the account, resulting in the locking of the account.

So Microsoft (I will not say anything about Windows Me here... or should I?) has decided that you must not check in obviously wrong code into your own repositories?

No. It has to do with the effect of that code, and I'm sure the complaints from others- they reversed the damage at the time. He could have contacted them, but in no account of it do I show that he's had any contact.

Tuxman · « **Reply #46 on:** January 10, 2022, 06:02 PM »

Quote from: wraith808 on January 10, 2022, 05:54 PM

It has to do with the effect of that code

I can't remember a rule that says that I can't commit code to my libraries that break my libraries.

Quote from: wraith808 on January 10, 2022, 05:54 PM

and I'm sure the complaints from others

So if other people - including large corporations - decide to take my free code that is licensed under a "no warranty" license and my code breaks their applications, Microsoft is allowed to modify my code?

tomos · « **Reply #47 on:** January 10, 2022, 06:26 PM »

It's possible, according to deozaan's link above, that this was a form of protest against the use of his code by large companies that use, but dont support, open source software. As such, it would seem to be his 'right' to do this (otoh I have no idea what's in the small print).

Me, I dont tend to look at things in terms of 'rights' -- rather in terms of interaction. The developer is probably frustrated -- how do you talk to a Fortune 500 company? You can probably talk all you want, but you get no response. So the big bold gesture is tempting. Big bold gestures tend to cause a backlash. Whether that gets you anywhere is debatable (your call) but I can certainly sympathise with the situation -- and the response (if I'm understanding things properly). Everyone's got to decide for themselves how they approach a situation like this.

RE the lack of financial support; that ~~must~~ could be so demoralising. Also shown up here recently by someone listing the support for their coding (almost zero). [EDIT] I know there are some very generous people here, and also that financially is not the only way to contribute. I dont want to be just negative here...[/EDIT]

wraith808 · « **Reply #48 on:** January 10, 2022, 07:25 PM »

Quote from: Tuxman on January 10, 2022, 06:02 PM

Quote from: wraith808 on January 10, 2022, 05:54 PM
It has to do with the effect of that code

I can't remember a rule that says that I can't commit code to my libraries that break my libraries.

Quote from: wraith808 on January 10, 2022, 05:54 PM
and I'm sure the complaints from others

So if other people - including large corporations - decide to take my free code that is licensed under a "no warranty" license and my code breaks their applications, Microsoft is allowed to modify my code?

Again, he hasn't shown that he reached out to Microsoft before posting this. If you read the article, they reverted the change in question and locked it down, which is situation that one might expect from a suspected hack. As it stands now:

Quote

Judging by the changelog on both faker.js and colors.js, however, it looks like his suspension has already been lifted.

Tuxman · « **Reply #49 on:** January 10, 2022, 07:34 PM »

Quote from: wraith808 on January 10, 2022, 07:25 PM

Again, he hasn't shown that he reached out to Microsoft before posting this.

A free software developer should not have to ask anyone, certainly not Microsoft, for permission to destroy his own code. That's pretty much the meaning of free software.

GitHub has some mechanisms to prevent "hacks", including 2FA. So you're only allowed to make your own code unusable if you can prove to Microsoft that you're really you? What kind of crude understanding of free software is that?