26 ms·

This is a reaction that is both funny and frustrating. While there is enlightened self-interest for Microsoft to buy GitHub (they rely on GitHub for a lot of t

by mikece 8y ago

This is a reaction that is both funny and frustrating. While there is enlightened self-interest for Microsoft to buy GitHub (they rely on GitHub for a lot of their open source work as well as their documentation websites) buying GitHub and saying "We're going to let it operate independently as before while we fund the project knowing it will never turn a profit -- that's how important Open Source is to us, we're willing to lose money every quarter to ensure GitHub will never implode for want of money" STILL brings distrust. And yet, the hue and cry is "Unless you open source every byte of GitHub's code and infrastructure you're just evil monopolists trying to smother us!" Given all that Microsoft has done to embrace and support open source I think the onus is now on the Open Source community to justify their distrust of Microsoft because "Duh, it's Microsoft" simply doesn't fly as a legitimate argument anymore.

zimablue 8y ago
Microsoft is the heart of corporate America, it's a facepalm to imagine that any dollar they spend isn't in their own long term interest to make money. It would be illegal for them not to. You can apply that to any large corporation but the problem is by definition how Microsoft makes money. How does Microsoft make money? They make money by renting from a platform which is monopolistic and enforced. What do they do to maintain this? They deliberately force people onto their platform by abusing their market position, and try to crush any opposition by any possible tactic, including dubious legal cases designed just to bankrupt their opposition. What else do they do? EEE, and also just blatant unnecessary reinvention /ripping off and lock-in when they get the chance. They didn't abandon some of the visible tactics and start paying open source because they had a moral revelation, it's a company with the same business model it's not possible. Those tactics were just inneffective and co-opting, more subtle EEE has to be the game plan. Why does that make me angrier than equally evil Facebook/Apple? Well if I was a farmer driving around one of those trucks with source code preventing me from fixing it I'd be pretty personally furious. But I'm not, I'm a developer and those guys are the ones trying to make everyone drive the coding equivalent. But it's worse, because coding isn't just my livelihood, it's a lot of how I think and express my thoughts. They're not messing with my job they're trying to restrict the way I think, so their shareholders can make a buck. "Microsoft is running Github for charity" have a word with yourself.
- jhall1468 8y ago
  > Microsoft is the heart of corporate America, it's a facepalm to imagine that any dollar they spend isn't in their own long term interest to make money. It would be illegal for them not to. You can apply that to any large corporation but the problem is by definition how Microsoft makes money. Feel free to show me which part of the criminal code "not making money" falls under. You want to rant about EEE (irrelevant for decades now) or some other silly plan to undermine open source development, feel free. But expect to be called out for your pointless drivel at the same time. I'm fine with being cautious about Microsoft. I think at this point it's no longer necessary, but sure I can understand that. But the EEE plot-line is a 20 year old joke. It's not funny anymore.
  - rainbowmverse 8y ago
    The person you replied to is probably referring to the concept of fiduciary duty which is often mentioned alongside discussions of public companies. I don't know anything about it though.
    - jhall1468 8y ago
      I agree, but calling it "illegal to not make a profit" is patently false.
  - mimimi31 8y ago
    >Feel free to show me which part of the criminal code "not making money" falls under. I don't really know anything about US laws, but I think they do have to act in the interest of their shareholders, i.e. make them more money.
    - jhall1468 8y ago
      Right but profit can be both long-term and short-term and often one requires sacrificing the other, which is why calling it "illegal" was completely incorrect.
    - coredog64 8y ago
gregknicholson 8y ago
Spare a thought for those of us who distrusted GitHub before Microsoft bought it, precisely because they're closed-source attempted-monopolists whose interests don't necessarily align with their users'.
- mikece 8y ago
  > ...precisely because they're closed-source attempted-monopolists whose interests don't necessarily align with their users'... As I asked a few days ago: "Do proponents of Free Software, on the whole, assert that the concept of intellectual property should not exist?" If so then I can see why a closed-source supporter of open source is an abhorrent concept. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17232778 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17232778
- syshum 8y ago
  Exactly many/most of the people Critical of this buyout where critical of GitHub BEFORE this announcement, I have viewed GitHub as a net negative for Free Software for a number of years, this Microsoft deal amplifies that...
grawprog 8y ago
What about them should be trusted? The latest version of their OS is literally spy and adware, they've been using UWP and their store to try and lock developers into their walled systems, they have an exceedingly poor history of managing things they purchase, they haven't stopped trying to dominate computing with their products. And let's not forget the secureboot bullshit. Just because they hire developers that have worked on open source projects, are seemingly more friendly towards open source by opening some of their code and saying everything will be fine really kind of means nothing. They haven't stopped Microsofting the fuck out of everything. I don't understand how it's gotten better at all. Windows 10 is more invasive and controlling than any shit that ever happened on any older version of windows.

by mikece 8y ago

zimablue 8y ago

Microsoft is the heart of corporate America, it's a facepalm to imagine that any dollar they spend isn't in their own long term interest to make money. It would be illegal for them not to. You can apply that to any large corporation but the problem is by definition how Microsoft makes money. How does Microsoft make money? They make money by renting from a platform which is monopolistic and enforced. What do they do to maintain this? They deliberately force people onto their platform by abusing their market position, and try to crush any opposition by any possible tactic, including dubious legal cases designed just to bankrupt their opposition. What else do they do? EEE, and also just blatant unnecessary reinvention /ripping off and lock-in when they get the chance. They didn't abandon some of the visible tactics and start paying open source because they had a moral revelation, it's a company with the same business model it's not possible. Those tactics were just inneffective and co-opting, more subtle EEE has to be the game plan. Why does that make me angrier than equally evil Facebook/Apple? Well if I was a farmer driving around one of those trucks with source code preventing me from fixing it I'd be pretty personally furious. But I'm not, I'm a developer and those guys are the ones trying to make everyone drive the coding equivalent. But it's worse, because coding isn't just my livelihood, it's a lot of how I think and express my thoughts. They're not messing with my job they're trying to restrict the way I think, so their shareholders can make a buck. "Microsoft is running Github for charity" have a word with yourself.

jhall1468 8y ago
> Microsoft is the heart of corporate America, it's a facepalm to imagine that any dollar they spend isn't in their own long term interest to make money. It would be illegal for them not to. You can apply that to any large corporation but the problem is by definition how Microsoft makes money. Feel free to show me which part of the criminal code "not making money" falls under. You want to rant about EEE (irrelevant for decades now) or some other silly plan to undermine open source development, feel free. But expect to be called out for your pointless drivel at the same time. I'm fine with being cautious about Microsoft. I think at this point it's no longer necessary, but sure I can understand that. But the EEE plot-line is a 20 year old joke. It's not funny anymore.
- rainbowmverse 8y ago
  The person you replied to is probably referring to the concept of fiduciary duty which is often mentioned alongside discussions of public companies. I don't know anything about it though.
  - jhall1468 8y ago
    I agree, but calling it "illegal to not make a profit" is patently false.
- mimimi31 8y ago
  >Feel free to show me which part of the criminal code "not making money" falls under. I don't really know anything about US laws, but I think they do have to act in the interest of their shareholders, i.e. make them more money.
  - jhall1468 8y ago
    Right but profit can be both long-term and short-term and often one requires sacrificing the other, which is why calling it "illegal" was completely incorrect.
  - coredog64 8y ago

gregknicholson 8y ago

Spare a thought for those of us who distrusted GitHub before Microsoft bought it, precisely because they're closed-source attempted-monopolists whose interests don't necessarily align with their users'.

mikece 8y ago
> ...precisely because they're closed-source attempted-monopolists whose interests don't necessarily align with their users'... As I asked a few days ago: "Do proponents of Free Software, on the whole, assert that the concept of intellectual property should not exist?" If so then I can see why a closed-source supporter of open source is an abhorrent concept. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17232778 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17232778
syshum 8y ago
Exactly many/most of the people Critical of this buyout where critical of GitHub BEFORE this announcement, I have viewed GitHub as a net negative for Free Software for a number of years, this Microsoft deal amplifies that...

grawprog 8y ago

What about them should be trusted? The latest version of their OS is literally spy and adware, they've been using UWP and their store to try and lock developers into their walled systems, they have an exceedingly poor history of managing things they purchase, they haven't stopped trying to dominate computing with their products. And let's not forget the secureboot bullshit. Just because they hire developers that have worked on open source projects, are seemingly more friendly towards open source by opening some of their code and saying everything will be fine really kind of means nothing. They haven't stopped Microsofting the fuck out of everything. I don't understand how it's gotten better at all. Windows 10 is more invasive and controlling than any shit that ever happened on any older version of windows.