34 ms·

Admit it. If Google bought them instead, there'd be far less freakout. Google is pretty scary, but you have to admit that we still distrust MS with our free sof

Admit it. If Google bought them instead, there'd be far less freakout. Google is pretty scary, but you have to admit that we still distrust MS with our free software even less.

rubidium 8y ago
No there would be more. Especially from enterprise users. Microsoft understands enterprise. Google doesnt.
- mickronome 8y ago
  Your probably right, but it's because Microsoft understand enterprises many others, like me, want nothing to with them. Because you are not the customer they want, however, they really try to make you think you are. They seem to very deliberately have marketed to middle and upper management for decades. These are levels the majority of companies barely have! Most companies are small, the kind of companies GitHub is 'built' for.
- techntoke 8y ago
  Google works better with the enterprise, and is far cheaper than Microsoft.
- leetrout 8y ago
  This is very true. Paid consumers as well... if I have a problem with a Microsoft product I can call an 800 number and talk to a human and generally get a resolution in a matter of hours at the max. Can't really do that with Google.
  - foxylad 8y ago
    You certainly can get responsive support from Google - if you pay for it. we have a silver support contract with Google for Appengine and get good support when we need it. I think the "if you pay for it" is the differentiator. And because Google supplies far more free services than Microsoft, they get a lot more complaints about non-existent support.
    - nojvek 8y ago
      Google is a one shot wonder with search engine and ads as their 90+ revenue engine. Microsoft has been doing Enterprise and Devtools for decades. Google also has a habit of abandoning things without any warning. I can’t trust them with my life’s worth of code.
      - foxylad 8y ago
        The "Google abandons everything" meme is getting very tired. Microsoft (and every other tech company) abandon things all the time. For example, Microsoft pulled the plug on an entire eco-system (Windows Phone) after promising developers it would be there for ever (and before that Silverlight). But for some reason Google shuttering a free online service (Reader) causes all the outrage. Also your comment that Google abandons things without warning is so wide of the mark as to be plain wrong. We've used Appengine for over ten years, and while they do deprecate features, they give you three years warning (and usually a simple migration path to a superior service). They gave over a year's notice that they were shutting down Google Reader. I would agree with your last point about trusting your code to Google... or anyone else for that matter. As the mass migration from GitHub to GitLab shows, it is easy to keep your code in multiple repositories. To rely on any single provider (even if that provider is yourself) is irresponsible.
    - koffiezet 8y ago
      Well, if you pay for the G-Suite, good luck getting any interaction with a human being if you have problems...
jsgo 8y ago
Far be it from me to question the distrust, but I'd say in recent years, since around the time they started open sourcing ASP.NET a while back, they've been pretty decent. I mean, some people dislike Windows for various reasons, but this falls more into their development umbrella so I trust it is in good hands as ASP.NET, Xamarin, etc. have been in recent years.
Digital-Citizen 8y ago
The claim misunderstands how software is different from services, so it's really a nonsensical statement. Also both Google and Microsoft distribute nonfree (proprietary, user-subjugating) software and spy on their users activities. The freedom of free software one runs on their own computer means it doesn't matter who holds the copyright to the software. If the copyright holder does something you don't like you have a copy you are free to run, inspect, modify, and share. Remotely hosted services are a different consideration than free software (see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-o... for more). With remotely hosted services the user doesn't typically have a copy of the service software. So free software concerns are for the service provider. We hope the service provider runs only free software for their own sake, they deserve to control their own computers just as we deserve to control our computers. In the particular case of free software and discussions you will publish publicly, you should consider https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html -- the GNU Project's ethical repo criteria. This was written well before Microsoft was known to have any interest in buying GitHub, possibly during the time when Microsoft was chastising "open source" software for existing (and still despising strongly-copylefted free software) and before their current "Microsoft [heart] open source" publicity campaign. Thus there's no chance GitHub's failing evaluation is based any ad hominem such as whether Google is somehow scarier than Microsoft.
partiallypro 8y ago
I distrust Google far more than I distrust Microsoft, I generally don't know why people see it otherwise, maybe it's simply because when they were surfing Slashdot in 2003 everyone told them to hate Microsoft and in their heart Google is still the "good guy." Imo, the roles have reversed.
- kotapi 8y ago
  It's not exactly about distrust, it's just clash of interests. Microsoft is literally personification of Closed-source software, them acquiring GitHub is surely an evil plan to take control over the open source area.
  - partiallypro 8y ago
    Microsoft is one of the largest open-source contributors in the world, possibly the biggest. The world has changed.
lucb1e 8y ago
Not me. Microsoft has fair products for sale whereas Google just takes a run with your data. I will avoid either if possible, but trying to imagine both scenarios, I think I'd consider my options just as much with either news. (I'll probably move to Gitlab, self hosted if possible but I hear it's terribly slow.)
- lloeki 8y ago
  > I hear it's terribly slow On our self-hosted instance it flies. Using all of gitlab.com, our self-hosted instance, and github.com with some kind of regularity, I find both GH.com and GL.com equally fast (or "slow" depending on your PoV) since a year or so, and our local instance faster. Neither is rocket fast, but neither is "terribly slow" either, and at any rate they're largely in the same ballpark.
- icebraining 8y ago
  I don't think it's slow, but it is hungry, don't expect to run it on a Raspberry Pi or equivalent VM. Personally I think it's a fair tradeoff considering we use it fully (including CI, etc).
  - lucb1e 8y ago
    I can run a couple blogs, ftpd, mail server (smtp+starttls, imaps, pop3s), dns server, mysql, torrent server, a factorio server, etc. on rpi-equivalent hardware (some intel atom based mini desktop that uses 20W in power). What is the big deal with a git front-end? I'm a software developer and I've written software in an interpreted language (PHP and Python) that runs on that computer for that computer, and it's plenty fast for this. It might not be able to handle things like realtime video encoding and streaming, or other things involving crypto (I'd like to run a Tor relay but I can't), but a git front-end... that's not heavy.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      Gitlab is not just a git frontend, it's a full development "suite". It includes Issues management, CI/CD server, deployment tools with integrated monitoring (using Prometheus), a chat server (Mattermost), a web-based editor, a container registry, and probably a bit more I'm not remembering.
Sylos 8y ago
I distrust Google more with privacy. I distrust Microsoft more with 1) not running newly acquired services into the ground, 2) not integrating it into their ecosystem until it's unusable from the outside, and 3) yes, with free software. This is still the company whose founder, Gates, and its former CEO, Ballmer, wanted to rid the world of free sofware. Yes, there's now a new CEO, but you can't tell me that this culture was at the top of the company for decades and then swapping out one person suddenly switches everything around.

Admit it. If Google bought them instead, there'd be far less freakout. Google is pretty scary, but you have to admit that we still distrust MS with our free software even less.

rubidium 8y ago

No there would be more. Especially from enterprise users. Microsoft understands enterprise. Google doesnt.

mickronome 8y ago
Your probably right, but it's because Microsoft understand enterprises many others, like me, want nothing to with them. Because you are not the customer they want, however, they really try to make you think you are. They seem to very deliberately have marketed to middle and upper management for decades. These are levels the majority of companies barely have! Most companies are small, the kind of companies GitHub is 'built' for.
techntoke 8y ago
Google works better with the enterprise, and is far cheaper than Microsoft.
leetrout 8y ago
This is very true. Paid consumers as well... if I have a problem with a Microsoft product I can call an 800 number and talk to a human and generally get a resolution in a matter of hours at the max. Can't really do that with Google.
- foxylad 8y ago
  You certainly can get responsive support from Google - if you pay for it. we have a silver support contract with Google for Appengine and get good support when we need it. I think the "if you pay for it" is the differentiator. And because Google supplies far more free services than Microsoft, they get a lot more complaints about non-existent support.
  - nojvek 8y ago
    Google is a one shot wonder with search engine and ads as their 90+ revenue engine. Microsoft has been doing Enterprise and Devtools for decades. Google also has a habit of abandoning things without any warning. I can’t trust them with my life’s worth of code.
    - foxylad 8y ago
      The "Google abandons everything" meme is getting very tired. Microsoft (and every other tech company) abandon things all the time. For example, Microsoft pulled the plug on an entire eco-system (Windows Phone) after promising developers it would be there for ever (and before that Silverlight). But for some reason Google shuttering a free online service (Reader) causes all the outrage. Also your comment that Google abandons things without warning is so wide of the mark as to be plain wrong. We've used Appengine for over ten years, and while they do deprecate features, they give you three years warning (and usually a simple migration path to a superior service). They gave over a year's notice that they were shutting down Google Reader. I would agree with your last point about trusting your code to Google... or anyone else for that matter. As the mass migration from GitHub to GitLab shows, it is easy to keep your code in multiple repositories. To rely on any single provider (even if that provider is yourself) is irresponsible.
  - koffiezet 8y ago
    Well, if you pay for the G-Suite, good luck getting any interaction with a human being if you have problems...

jsgo 8y ago

Far be it from me to question the distrust, but I'd say in recent years, since around the time they started open sourcing ASP.NET a while back, they've been pretty decent. I mean, some people dislike Windows for various reasons, but this falls more into their development umbrella so I trust it is in good hands as ASP.NET, Xamarin, etc. have been in recent years.

Digital-Citizen 8y ago

The claim misunderstands how software is different from services, so it's really a nonsensical statement. Also both Google and Microsoft distribute nonfree (proprietary, user-subjugating) software and spy on their users activities. The freedom of free software one runs on their own computer means it doesn't matter who holds the copyright to the software. If the copyright holder does something you don't like you have a copy you are free to run, inspect, modify, and share. Remotely hosted services are a different consideration than free software (see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-o... for more). With remotely hosted services the user doesn't typically have a copy of the service software. So free software concerns are for the service provider. We hope the service provider runs only free software for their own sake, they deserve to control their own computers just as we deserve to control our computers. In the particular case of free software and discussions you will publish publicly, you should consider https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html -- the GNU Project's ethical repo criteria. This was written well before Microsoft was known to have any interest in buying GitHub, possibly during the time when Microsoft was chastising "open source" software for existing (and still despising strongly-copylefted free software) and before their current "Microsoft [heart] open source" publicity campaign. Thus there's no chance GitHub's failing evaluation is based any ad hominem such as whether Google is somehow scarier than Microsoft.

partiallypro 8y ago

I distrust Google far more than I distrust Microsoft, I generally don't know why people see it otherwise, maybe it's simply because when they were surfing Slashdot in 2003 everyone told them to hate Microsoft and in their heart Google is still the "good guy." Imo, the roles have reversed.

kotapi 8y ago
It's not exactly about distrust, it's just clash of interests. Microsoft is literally personification of Closed-source software, them acquiring GitHub is surely an evil plan to take control over the open source area.
- partiallypro 8y ago
  Microsoft is one of the largest open-source contributors in the world, possibly the biggest. The world has changed.

lucb1e 8y ago

Not me. Microsoft has fair products for sale whereas Google just takes a run with your data. I will avoid either if possible, but trying to imagine both scenarios, I think I'd consider my options just as much with either news. (I'll probably move to Gitlab, self hosted if possible but I hear it's terribly slow.)

lloeki 8y ago
> I hear it's terribly slow On our self-hosted instance it flies. Using all of gitlab.com, our self-hosted instance, and github.com with some kind of regularity, I find both GH.com and GL.com equally fast (or "slow" depending on your PoV) since a year or so, and our local instance faster. Neither is rocket fast, but neither is "terribly slow" either, and at any rate they're largely in the same ballpark.
icebraining 8y ago
I don't think it's slow, but it is hungry, don't expect to run it on a Raspberry Pi or equivalent VM. Personally I think it's a fair tradeoff considering we use it fully (including CI, etc).
- lucb1e 8y ago
  I can run a couple blogs, ftpd, mail server (smtp+starttls, imaps, pop3s), dns server, mysql, torrent server, a factorio server, etc. on rpi-equivalent hardware (some intel atom based mini desktop that uses 20W in power). What is the big deal with a git front-end? I'm a software developer and I've written software in an interpreted language (PHP and Python) that runs on that computer for that computer, and it's plenty fast for this. It might not be able to handle things like realtime video encoding and streaming, or other things involving crypto (I'd like to run a Tor relay but I can't), but a git front-end... that's not heavy.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Gitlab is not just a git frontend, it's a full development "suite". It includes Issues management, CI/CD server, deployment tools with integrated monitoring (using Prometheus), a chat server (Mattermost), a web-based editor, a container registry, and probably a bit more I'm not remembering.

Sylos 8y ago

I distrust Google more with privacy. I distrust Microsoft more with 1) not running newly acquired services into the ground, 2) not integrating it into their ecosystem until it's unusable from the outside, and 3) yes, with free software. This is still the company whose founder, Gates, and its former CEO, Ballmer, wanted to rid the world of free sofware. Yes, there's now a new CEO, but you can't tell me that this culture was at the top of the company for decades and then swapping out one person suddenly switches everything around.