5 ms·

I don't quite understand why people are sad or disappointed about this acquisition. You should be extremely elated about it. You know why? Github was never an

I don't quite understand why people are sad or disappointed about this acquisition. You should be extremely elated about it. You know why? Github was never an Open Source product itself but sat on top of the Open Source community and used that "goodwill" to license and sell its proprietary software. Now that another proprietary software-maker has acquired this company, maybe we can all finally adopt the principle that: > Open Source software needs Open Source tools

zeth___ 8y ago
Looking at you Atlasian.
timvisee 8y ago
Although this doesn't directly have anything to do with open-source; look at what happened to Skype, LinkedIn, and other companies they acquired.
- joering2 8y ago
  Did i miss some news? Skype is still Skype and Linkedin hasn’t changed much either. ?? if anything those two proves being Acquired by MS is not as bad as for example Google who loves to eventually shut down their acquirers.
  - xt00 8y ago
    Skype UI was changed dramatically for virtually no obvious reason and resulted in the usage of skype to be way more annoying for basically no good reason. They then rebranded Lync to be called Skype for Business which is a giant mess because like so many microsoft enterprise products it uses some strange scheme to connect to either a web-based server or to an enterprise server that invariably is not setup correctly and never works reliably. So they basically bought skype which everybody loved and turned it into something that a huge amount of people don't like now due to UI changes and created a second version of Skype that basically barely works and many people are forced to use at work..
    - rdm_blackhole 8y ago
      We are forced to use Skype for Business at my job, and let me tell you, I have never seen a POS like that. Calls drop out for no reason, UI is unintuitive with all kinds of weird dropdowns and buttons, slow to start and just a pain to use in general. I wish we could use Slack calls instead...
      - voltagex_ 8y ago
        Skype for Business is not Skype in anything other than name. I don't know why they tried to combine the branding.
      - t_treesap 8y ago
        I'm counting down the days until Teams has fully integrated all of the Skype for Business features so that they can finally shut the POS down. It is, indeed, the absolute worst.
      - bigger_cheese 8y ago
        I use it in my job as well. I agree it is pretty terrible but it is miles better than Microsoft Communicator which is what we used pre Skype for Business.
    - mysterypie 8y ago
      In addition to everything you said, and I would also add: - Microsoft turned Skype into spyware. Before Microsoft, Skype used encrypted peer-to-peer connections which I'm confident had excellent cryptography given how much it annoyed some governments that Skype couldn't be bugged or monitored. - Microsoft provides no way to delete chats, voicemails, and video messages, although they give the ridiculous option of "hiding" old conversations as if that's a reasonable substitute for deletion. At this point, it wouldn't be greatly surprising if they record and save all voice calls. There's inertia in people and companies abandoning Skype because everybody knows it and everyone has it (or had it). But the thing that really preserves Skype is that it can connect from any device to device, including landlines, and it can do all of audio, video, and text. A Skype-killer product needs (a) to run on all major platforms so you can communicate with someone regardless of whether they are on Windows, OS X, Linux, Android, or iOS, and (b) the ability to make connections to landline phones, (c) do all of audio, video, and text chat, (d) be reliable and trustworthy. That would be the Skype killer.
  - brownbat 8y ago
    Tech scandals from the archive... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9786545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9786545 But now they're partnering with Signal so maybe that's a good case about how things change over time: https://signal.org/blog/skype-partnership/ https://signal.org/blog/skype-partnership/
- oblio 8y ago
  LinkedIn? The network everyone loved to hate? I don't think anything has changed in that regard, if anything, Microsoft are probably 1% more trustworthy compared to the super-shady LinkedIn management of old.
- sb8244 8y ago
  Microsoft is opening LinkedIn up to other tools while completely maintaining their goal of not sharing your data (Iframe integrations so no data is shared). They're expanding capability without selling out users
- emodendroket 8y ago
  I can't see any big changes in LinkedIn really.
- IronBacon 8y ago
  Nokia?
jpalomaki 8y ago
One could argue that both Atlassian and Github were to some extent successful, because they kept the open source competitors away by giving out free licenses to open source projects. With these free options available, people in community were less interested in putting effort to free (as in speech) alternatives for these closed source products.
- jononor 8y ago
  Yes this is likely. However we can have our cake and eat it too, companies can host an instance of an open source service. Like Gitlab does EDIT, yes I am aware that there are some non open parts in Gitlab.com
  - exikyut 8y ago
    What parts of gitlab.com are non-open?
    - OJFord 8y ago
      They refer to it at as 'open-core': https://about.gitlab.com/2016/07/20/gitlab-is-open-core-github-is-closed-source https://about.gitlab.com/2016/07/20/gitlab-is-open-core-gith... I thought this was interesting to re-read in light of this news, so I've resubmitted it for discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17225725 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17225725
      - exikyut 8y ago
        Good call :) it just went from #13 to #12 on the front page.
ajmurmann 8y ago
That's assuming people here care deeply about open source and it's philosophy. It's probably fair to say that most people on HN care a lot more about how building the next Atlassian or GitHub and conveniently being able to use OSS for that than about those philosophical values.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  Isn't the entire point of the "open-source" movement to throw out all the philosophical baggage that comes with "free software"?
  - H4CK3RM4N 8y ago
    Maybe for Microsoft.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      I mean no that was esr's whole deal. He wanted a version more in tune with business than free software. rms hated it. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... > Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business executives by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values. Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values. The term “open source” quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same association. > The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand. Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success
emodendroket 8y ago
Well, demonstrably, it doesn't.
tomxor 8y ago
I love open source, but it doesn't mean I think absolutely everything must be open source... the most important part here _is_ (git), github was (omg I'm already speaking past tense) a decent platform sprinkling some nice simple collaboration on top and convenience, it's not vital, and it's replaceable (so we have choice), and for a long time it was the best there was. People are disappointed because many of us don't trust or like MS and want nothing to do with them, people complain about Google removing their "do no evil" clause, Microsoft basically has a fucking "do evil" clause but they will always tell you the opposite, they are probably even being sincere, it's just not true though.
neaanopri 8y ago
As a github user, i don't see any way the acquisition could possibly make my user experience better. I don't use any microsoft tools (and I _hate_ all windows after 7), so Microsoft integrating with GitHub has no appeal to me. I think the best case scenario for me personally is that nothing changes. None of the github changes in the past few years have added anything noticeable for me (not sure if others agree, be interested to know). And the best case scenario being "nothing changes" is pretty damning. I know it's overwrought, but Skype was perfect, and 2010s-Microsoft fucked them up. And if we're seriouslyhaving the best case scenario be "nothing changes", that's bad. And it also just seems part of the bullshit mindset of startups being about the exit, and not about making a new, sustainable company. GitHub didn't need to do this, but they did, to justify their reportedly insane burn rate. Microsoft still won't let them get away with that, they'll just take the heat for the inevitable layoffs. It's just fucking depressing all round.
- BrandonM 8y ago
  > As a github user, i don't see any way the acquisition could possibly make my user experience better. It sounds like they were running out of money. So I guess it makes your experience better in that you get to keep using it.

zeth___ 8y ago

Looking at you Atlasian.

timvisee 8y ago

Although this doesn't directly have anything to do with open-source; look at what happened to Skype, LinkedIn, and other companies they acquired.

joering2 8y ago
Did i miss some news? Skype is still Skype and Linkedin hasn’t changed much either. ?? if anything those two proves being Acquired by MS is not as bad as for example Google who loves to eventually shut down their acquirers.
- xt00 8y ago
  Skype UI was changed dramatically for virtually no obvious reason and resulted in the usage of skype to be way more annoying for basically no good reason. They then rebranded Lync to be called Skype for Business which is a giant mess because like so many microsoft enterprise products it uses some strange scheme to connect to either a web-based server or to an enterprise server that invariably is not setup correctly and never works reliably. So they basically bought skype which everybody loved and turned it into something that a huge amount of people don't like now due to UI changes and created a second version of Skype that basically barely works and many people are forced to use at work..
  - rdm_blackhole 8y ago
    We are forced to use Skype for Business at my job, and let me tell you, I have never seen a POS like that. Calls drop out for no reason, UI is unintuitive with all kinds of weird dropdowns and buttons, slow to start and just a pain to use in general. I wish we could use Slack calls instead...
    - voltagex_ 8y ago
      Skype for Business is not Skype in anything other than name. I don't know why they tried to combine the branding.
    - t_treesap 8y ago
      I'm counting down the days until Teams has fully integrated all of the Skype for Business features so that they can finally shut the POS down. It is, indeed, the absolute worst.
    - bigger_cheese 8y ago
      I use it in my job as well. I agree it is pretty terrible but it is miles better than Microsoft Communicator which is what we used pre Skype for Business.
  - mysterypie 8y ago
    In addition to everything you said, and I would also add: - Microsoft turned Skype into spyware. Before Microsoft, Skype used encrypted peer-to-peer connections which I'm confident had excellent cryptography given how much it annoyed some governments that Skype couldn't be bugged or monitored. - Microsoft provides no way to delete chats, voicemails, and video messages, although they give the ridiculous option of "hiding" old conversations as if that's a reasonable substitute for deletion. At this point, it wouldn't be greatly surprising if they record and save all voice calls. There's inertia in people and companies abandoning Skype because everybody knows it and everyone has it (or had it). But the thing that really preserves Skype is that it can connect from any device to device, including landlines, and it can do all of audio, video, and text. A Skype-killer product needs (a) to run on all major platforms so you can communicate with someone regardless of whether they are on Windows, OS X, Linux, Android, or iOS, and (b) the ability to make connections to landline phones, (c) do all of audio, video, and text chat, (d) be reliable and trustworthy. That would be the Skype killer.
- brownbat 8y ago
  Tech scandals from the archive... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9786545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9786545 But now they're partnering with Signal so maybe that's a good case about how things change over time: https://signal.org/blog/skype-partnership/ https://signal.org/blog/skype-partnership/
oblio 8y ago
LinkedIn? The network everyone loved to hate? I don't think anything has changed in that regard, if anything, Microsoft are probably 1% more trustworthy compared to the super-shady LinkedIn management of old.
sb8244 8y ago
Microsoft is opening LinkedIn up to other tools while completely maintaining their goal of not sharing your data (Iframe integrations so no data is shared). They're expanding capability without selling out users
emodendroket 8y ago
I can't see any big changes in LinkedIn really.
IronBacon 8y ago
Nokia?

jpalomaki 8y ago

One could argue that both Atlassian and Github were to some extent successful, because they kept the open source competitors away by giving out free licenses to open source projects. With these free options available, people in community were less interested in putting effort to free (as in speech) alternatives for these closed source products.

jononor 8y ago
Yes this is likely. However we can have our cake and eat it too, companies can host an instance of an open source service. Like Gitlab does EDIT, yes I am aware that there are some non open parts in Gitlab.com
- exikyut 8y ago
  What parts of gitlab.com are non-open?
  - OJFord 8y ago
    They refer to it at as 'open-core': https://about.gitlab.com/2016/07/20/gitlab-is-open-core-github-is-closed-source https://about.gitlab.com/2016/07/20/gitlab-is-open-core-gith... I thought this was interesting to re-read in light of this news, so I've resubmitted it for discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17225725 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17225725
    - exikyut 8y ago
      Good call :) it just went from #13 to #12 on the front page.

ajmurmann 8y ago

That's assuming people here care deeply about open source and it's philosophy. It's probably fair to say that most people on HN care a lot more about how building the next Atlassian or GitHub and conveniently being able to use OSS for that than about those philosophical values.

emodendroket 8y ago
Isn't the entire point of the "open-source" movement to throw out all the philosophical baggage that comes with "free software"?
- H4CK3RM4N 8y ago
  Maybe for Microsoft.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    I mean no that was esr's whole deal. He wanted a version more in tune with business than free software. rms hated it. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... > Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business executives by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values. Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values. The term “open source” quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same association. > The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand. Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success

emodendroket 8y ago

Well, demonstrably, it doesn't.

tomxor 8y ago

I love open source, but it doesn't mean I think absolutely everything must be open source... the most important part here _is_ (git), github was (omg I'm already speaking past tense) a decent platform sprinkling some nice simple collaboration on top and convenience, it's not vital, and it's replaceable (so we have choice), and for a long time it was the best there was. People are disappointed because many of us don't trust or like MS and want nothing to do with them, people complain about Google removing their "do no evil" clause, Microsoft basically has a fucking "do evil" clause but they will always tell you the opposite, they are probably even being sincere, it's just not true though.

neaanopri 8y ago

As a github user, i don't see any way the acquisition could possibly make my user experience better. I don't use any microsoft tools (and I _hate_ all windows after 7), so Microsoft integrating with GitHub has no appeal to me. I think the best case scenario for me personally is that nothing changes. None of the github changes in the past few years have added anything noticeable for me (not sure if others agree, be interested to know). And the best case scenario being "nothing changes" is pretty damning. I know it's overwrought, but Skype was perfect, and 2010s-Microsoft fucked them up. And if we're seriouslyhaving the best case scenario be "nothing changes", that's bad. And it also just seems part of the bullshit mindset of startups being about the exit, and not about making a new, sustainable company. GitHub didn't need to do this, but they did, to justify their reportedly insane burn rate. Microsoft still won't let them get away with that, they'll just take the heat for the inevitable layoffs. It's just fucking depressing all round.

BrandonM 8y ago
> As a github user, i don't see any way the acquisition could possibly make my user experience better. It sounds like they were running out of money. So I guess it makes your experience better in that you get to keep using it.