5 ms·

I completely agree with your comment. As much as I love Microsoft, this is a weird development. It’s like if Google bought Mozilla and Firefox became just anot

I completely agree with your comment. As much as I love Microsoft, this is a weird development. It’s like if Google bought Mozilla and Firefox became just another Google browser.

MBCook 8y ago
Is it? I imagine VSS and their cloud source control offering (don’t remember the name) probably aren’t doing all that well in the face of GitHub. They want to be a player in that game, so they’ll transition off they are old product which isn’t that popular onto a new one they purchased that has all the mind share. As long as they don’t screw it up, and recent Microsoft seems to me like a company that won’t, it will benefit them. And perhaps it will benefit the user some to do have a company with deep pockets behind it.
- major505 8y ago
  Microsoft adopt git as their main source control, even in internal projects. Makes sense they try to control the future of the tool they use in so meny projects.
  - stephenr 8y ago
    Git != GitHub, fyi.
  - Fill1200 8y ago
    I want Mercurial and Subversion in GitHub.
    - stephenr 8y ago
      Why not just use a service that supports them?
    - ergo14 8y ago
      Use RhodeCode then - but it is a self-hosted solution.
  - RyanZAG 8y ago
    Github don't control git -- > Torvalds turned over maintenance on 26 July 2005 to Junio Hamano, a major contributor to the project.[25] Hamano was responsible for the 1.0 release on 21 December 2005, and remains the project's maintainer.[26] I'm guessing Torvalds still has a lot of control if push came to shove, so we can assume git is executively controlled by Torvalds and Hamano.
    - Zash 8y ago
      Github does own a vast share of the git-related developer mindshare tho, which is probably more valuable to Microsoft.
    - feenix566 8y ago
      Not many people use git without Github though, whether it's Github proper or a local installation of Github Enterprise. It's pretty tough to do code reviews without it. There are tools out there to do it, but Github is the standard.
- malkia 8y ago
  AFAIK, I don't think anyone seriously used VSS inside Microsoft, but heard that long time ago they forked perforce in customized way... A bit like google.
  - OkGoDoIt 8y ago
    Yes, I used that internal Source Depot (based on Perforce I think, or at least something old and convoluted) when I worked on Windows Phone 7 back in 2010, it was not fun. There were a few teams within Microsoft at the time using the visual studio team system source control but I don’t believe it was common, as a lot of the error reporting (watson) had plug-ins for the proprietary Source Depot.
    - asveikau 8y ago
      Why was it not fun? I had no trouble with sourcedepot when I was there. I think git and decentralized source control are great, but I get a little suspicious of people saying tooling is "not fun" simply because it isn't their favorite or most familiar.
      - OkGoDoIt 8y ago
        That’s fair, I’m probably being too harsh on it. It was my first job out of college so my first time interacting with professional-scale source control. I don’t remember specifically what I didn’t like about it, I think mostly that it was slow and a bit unintuitive, but I can’t say with any conviction that it was actually a bad system. I do remember there being a general sense on my team that people wanted to move off of it and onto something more modern, so perhaps I just internalized that.
    - hestefisk 8y ago
      Ugh, Perforce. That was painful. Perhaps it’s time to see what’s next in source control systems, ie bzr.
      - malkia 8y ago
naikrovek 8y ago
What isn't commonly known is that GitHub was never profitable and was getting closer and closer to insolvency every day. Microsoft rescued them.
- beenBoutIT 8y ago
  Any idea how they could possibly make GitHub profitable? It seems more likely that they want to attach the Microsoft name to GitHub to build up positive sentiment among the open source community. Something like keeping GitHub alive without wrecking it could cause some people to hate Microsoft a little bit less.
  - tootie 8y ago
    They will operate them as a loss leader to Azure.
    - stubish 8y ago
      This. They own where the code is lands, and will try to build the best, most streamlined CI system straight to profitable Azure deployments. Probably cheapest too, if they update agreements to get a slice of the deployment pie if people do want to deploy to AWS or GCE. 'Extinguish' might be right, but Amazon is the target here and holding off Google in second place. Other cloud providers will have to race to the bottom if they are not already there.
      - wilsonnb 8y ago
        Last I checked, AWS is in first place by a wide margin, followed by Azure and then IBM in third. Google is trailing all of them at the moment.
  - fencepost 8y ago
    How profitable is Visual Studio? Visual Studio Code? Microsoft wants people to develop for Windows, because with no apps you have Windows Phone. If what you want to use runs on Windows, Windows is what you purchase (or in a few years probably subscribe to along with Office 365 and OneDrive). A lot of that subscription model already exists on the Enterprise side of Windows, and I don't think anyone would be surprised to see it expand - "Windows as a Service" has been a topic of discussion for years now.

I completely agree with your comment. As much as I love Microsoft, this is a weird development. It’s like if Google bought Mozilla and Firefox became just another Google browser.

MBCook 8y ago

Is it? I imagine VSS and their cloud source control offering (don’t remember the name) probably aren’t doing all that well in the face of GitHub. They want to be a player in that game, so they’ll transition off they are old product which isn’t that popular onto a new one they purchased that has all the mind share. As long as they don’t screw it up, and recent Microsoft seems to me like a company that won’t, it will benefit them. And perhaps it will benefit the user some to do have a company with deep pockets behind it.

major505 8y ago
Microsoft adopt git as their main source control, even in internal projects. Makes sense they try to control the future of the tool they use in so meny projects.
- stephenr 8y ago
  Git != GitHub, fyi.
- Fill1200 8y ago
  I want Mercurial and Subversion in GitHub.
  - stephenr 8y ago
    Why not just use a service that supports them?
  - ergo14 8y ago
    Use RhodeCode then - but it is a self-hosted solution.
- RyanZAG 8y ago
  Github don't control git -- > Torvalds turned over maintenance on 26 July 2005 to Junio Hamano, a major contributor to the project.[25] Hamano was responsible for the 1.0 release on 21 December 2005, and remains the project's maintainer.[26] I'm guessing Torvalds still has a lot of control if push came to shove, so we can assume git is executively controlled by Torvalds and Hamano.
  - Zash 8y ago
    Github does own a vast share of the git-related developer mindshare tho, which is probably more valuable to Microsoft.
  - feenix566 8y ago
    Not many people use git without Github though, whether it's Github proper or a local installation of Github Enterprise. It's pretty tough to do code reviews without it. There are tools out there to do it, but Github is the standard.
malkia 8y ago
AFAIK, I don't think anyone seriously used VSS inside Microsoft, but heard that long time ago they forked perforce in customized way... A bit like google.
- OkGoDoIt 8y ago
  Yes, I used that internal Source Depot (based on Perforce I think, or at least something old and convoluted) when I worked on Windows Phone 7 back in 2010, it was not fun. There were a few teams within Microsoft at the time using the visual studio team system source control but I don’t believe it was common, as a lot of the error reporting (watson) had plug-ins for the proprietary Source Depot.
  - asveikau 8y ago
    Why was it not fun? I had no trouble with sourcedepot when I was there. I think git and decentralized source control are great, but I get a little suspicious of people saying tooling is "not fun" simply because it isn't their favorite or most familiar.
    - OkGoDoIt 8y ago
      That’s fair, I’m probably being too harsh on it. It was my first job out of college so my first time interacting with professional-scale source control. I don’t remember specifically what I didn’t like about it, I think mostly that it was slow and a bit unintuitive, but I can’t say with any conviction that it was actually a bad system. I do remember there being a general sense on my team that people wanted to move off of it and onto something more modern, so perhaps I just internalized that.
  - hestefisk 8y ago
    Ugh, Perforce. That was painful. Perhaps it’s time to see what’s next in source control systems, ie bzr.
    - malkia 8y ago

naikrovek 8y ago

What isn't commonly known is that GitHub was never profitable and was getting closer and closer to insolvency every day. Microsoft rescued them.

beenBoutIT 8y ago
Any idea how they could possibly make GitHub profitable? It seems more likely that they want to attach the Microsoft name to GitHub to build up positive sentiment among the open source community. Something like keeping GitHub alive without wrecking it could cause some people to hate Microsoft a little bit less.
- tootie 8y ago
  They will operate them as a loss leader to Azure.
  - stubish 8y ago
    This. They own where the code is lands, and will try to build the best, most streamlined CI system straight to profitable Azure deployments. Probably cheapest too, if they update agreements to get a slice of the deployment pie if people do want to deploy to AWS or GCE. 'Extinguish' might be right, but Amazon is the target here and holding off Google in second place. Other cloud providers will have to race to the bottom if they are not already there.
    - wilsonnb 8y ago
      Last I checked, AWS is in first place by a wide margin, followed by Azure and then IBM in third. Google is trailing all of them at the moment.
- fencepost 8y ago
  How profitable is Visual Studio? Visual Studio Code? Microsoft wants people to develop for Windows, because with no apps you have Windows Phone. If what you want to use runs on Windows, Windows is what you purchase (or in a few years probably subscribe to along with Office 365 and OneDrive). A lot of that subscription model already exists on the Enterprise side of Windows, and I don't think anyone would be surprised to see it expand - "Windows as a Service" has been a topic of discussion for years now.