7 ms·
I am worried that a company as important to the open-source community as github is now owned by one of the major players. I think it really impacts the neutrali
by LeanderK 8y ago
I am worried that a company as important to the open-source community as github is now owned by one of the major players. I think it really impacts the neutrality of github. If I would compete with microsoft in a certain space, I would really think twice about relying on github.
Also, this monopolization is driving me mad.
- zackya89 8y agothe history of Microsoft is the reason why we all reacting this way. But encouraged by the move they made lately coming into Linux, even though other players have forced their hand
- tradesmanhelix 8y agoMicrosoft has slain giants before. They will try to do it again. No one is too big to fail.
- merinowool 8y agoExcept HSBC.
- smolder 8y agoYes, particularly because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
- d3sandoval 8y agoAs far as I can tell, today's MS is very aware of the brand problem they created for themselves and have been working hard to fix it. A recent changelog episode addresses this exact issue:https://changelog.com/podcast/298#transcript-78 https://changelog.com/podcast/298#transcript-78
- kakwa_ 8y agoI would be as worried if it was AWS or Google. Github should remain a neutral ground in my opinion.
- beenBoutIT 8y agoIt already was Google. Remember Google Code?
- kakwa_ 8y agoNo, Google code was a failed attempt at a code hosting service from Google. They failed to make it attractive to other developers. I don't remember the name, but MS tried for a year or two to create another competing hosting platform if I recall correctly, and they also failed.
- s2g 8y ago> I would be as worried if it was AWS or Google. Good. Need more people like you.
- merinowool 8y agoOnly way to disrupt monopoly is to use something else. I am going to migrate all my projects from GitHub. Be an example you want the world to be.
- crankylinuxuser 8y agoI'd recommend running your own FossilSCM server. It supports full code repo, wiki, bugtracking, and more. And it's free software to boot. I'm looking to see if it's feasible to write a github->fossil layer to make it easy for programmers to dump to local. Right now, Git is easy to dump... but those issues and wiki support isnt dumpable yet..
- jaegerpicker 8y agoif you mean dump from GH the wiki is a separate git repo. just clone <our_project>.wiki.git instead of <our_project>.git
- crankylinuxuser 8y agoUnfortunately, that misses the bulk of user communications. Those bug reports and issues are also tremendously important. And since they link back to commits, its essential to obtain that history as well and maintain the appropriate link between the 2. Else, changes were made for "reasons", and those justifications are effectively lost.
- yrashk 8y agoThis was the main reason I started developing https://sit.fyi https://sit.fyi. It allows you to carry issues, discussions, patches as files (for example, in a git repo) in a decentralized way and has a tool that allows to import from GitHub
- bmelton 8y agoIf there are other things to use, it isn't much of a monopoly.
- Y7ZCQtNo39 8y agoI could see developers ditching GitHub with the acquisition for a perceived conflict of interest. It's really easy to change your remote. I see a potentially big market opportunity for anyone who wants to compete in the space now.
- monotypical 8y agoChanging the remote doesn't migrate anything in the issue tracker, merge requests, webhooks, pages or wiki
- Y7ZCQtNo39 8y agoIt wouldn't be seamless. But it wouldn't be difficult for a competitor to create a "competitor import" feature that moved over most of it in a few clicks.
- t_treesap 8y agoIt's possible, but I think it's a stretch to say it "wouldn't be difficult."
- static_noise 8y agoMigrating from GitHub to GitLab https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOXuOg9tQI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOXuOg9tQI this adresses some of the issues.
- johannes1234321 8y agoIt doesn't solve the number one issue: External references to your project will all still point to github.com since that's where the project homepage (aka README.md) is.
- mort96 8y agoIf GitHub does get sold to MS and I end up moving to GitLab, I'll probably push one last commit to the GitHub repo adding a header saying the project has moved, with a link to the GitLab repo. It's not perfect, but it wouldn't be too bad.
- unreal37 8y agoThey weren't profitable. So the problem perhaps is these cool free tools that some people rely on just don't have a clear way to make money.
- dannyw 8y agoHow profitable would they be if they didn’t pursue “growth at all costs” and built GitHub with a small and focused team like Stack Overflow or WhatsApp?
- scarface74 8y agoAs a startup, worrying about competition from Microsoft hasn't been a big deal for almost a decade. I would be more worried about Facebook, Amazon, and Google.
- jjgijeie8282 8y agoEmbrace Extend Extinguish
- s2g 8y ago> monopolization Conglomeration, unless you hated github before which I wouldn't object too. I agree with you anyway.
- Yhippa 8y agoWhy did the F/OSS community put all their eggs in one basket? Hell a lot of big companies did also. I wonder how they're going to react to this?
- dredds 8y agoExactly. Code.google.com even provided links for porting repos to GH. Will Google revive it's own code repository in light of this move?
- ageofwant 8y agoProbably because its fairly low-risk. I have ~270 Github repos. About a year ago I made a ~5 line Python script that added Gitlab as another origin to each repo. I still use (used) Gitlab as my main host, I'm a paying customer - but for me to flick over to Gitlab is a one-liner.
- dcbadacd 8y agoSimple answer: GitHub is good to use I'm all for FOSS (Git webgui) solutions, but they were absolutely not competitive until recently. Even now, with less trust, the social effect and the lack of need of maintenance and setup is attractive.
- manigandham 8y agoWhy is it important? What are you relying on? It's just git. Dozens of other services that do the same thing, many that arent losing money every year.
- rvshchwl 8y agoWell, Google recently also purchased Kaggle, another major open-source repository for code. It hasn't really changed anything for now, but Microsoft's purchase will be in the same vein. I think that Microsoft's contribution to the open-source community in the last few years kind of makes sense for why they are purchasing it, just like Google purchased Kaggle because of their contribution to ML.
- telltruth 8y agoYour dream of “neutral” VCS is misfounded. Websites like GitHub are massive bandwidth and storage hogs and needs huge cash burn just for dev ops. Unfortunately they can’t be reasonably profitable as well because revenue sources are rather tiny. This means every vcs company out there offering free for all plan is bound to be sold or go bankrupt. For GitHub I would have wished Google bought them because there is huge synergy both ways. With Microsoft, eventually some CVP there will realize that there is no profitability and they will leave it to rot.