5 ms·

"Open Science is not compatible with one corporation owning the platform used to collaborate on code" That was already the case before Microsoft purchased GitH

"Open Science is not compatible with one corporation owning the platform used to collaborate on code" That was already the case before Microsoft purchased GitHub. So why did they start to use it in the first place, if they had this concern?

org3432 8y ago
Now the whole data set in GitHub, the metadata, being able to analyze all the projects may not be as open since it can conflict with other microsoft products, such as LinkedIn if you're looking for candidates, or possibly AI training data.
- bobbytherobot 8y ago
  Microsoft products already conflict with Microsoft products.
mtgx 8y ago
Maybe what he meant was one large corporation. It's usually the large players that start taking down accounts at will and have bogus takedown rules, because they are the largest and don't care about any one account.
pessimizer 8y ago
It was a bad idea in the first place, and one of the dangers was that this one failure point could end up controlled by a company like Microsoft. You can say that it was a bad idea for people to store all of their things in a warehouse with no sprinklers or smoke detectors, but after it's been done, it's pretty silly to scold people for not continuing to store things in a warehouse that is currently on fire.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > for not continuing to store things in a warehouse that is currently on fire. That metaphor is rather silly. Microsoft's purchase of github didn't set the metaphorical warehouse on fire. At most, it only raised attention to the fire hazard that was present since the warehouse was created. What next? People will complain about the privacy risks presented in services such as Dropbox only after some major corportion buys it?
  - bonesss 8y ago
    I think it's blindingly naive to think that, on any meaningful timeline, a company like GitHub wouldn't be mining their userbase for trends and capitalising on them by selling it to third parties... There's nothing shady about using corporate information and user metadata to provide value to others, but you have to imagine that MS owning that data set is highly similar to MS buying it from GitHub. Up to the minute analysis of a meaningful percentage of the development ecosphere is highly valuable. Selling reports, analysis, or monitoring is a natural expansion of GitHubs business model. Maybe having this dataset go into the same warehouse as LinkedIn strikes some as scary, but I think one actor who is less reliant on direct revenue will have less incentive to push boundaries and spread that info to as many other actors as possible... So whatever privacy issue people feel has arisen here, it's likely just refined itself a little to be much narrower but only a little deeper. Fundamentally, if you don't trust MS with your goodies you shouldn't trust GitHub with your data at all. GitHub Enterprise might be a better solution ;)
    - ggg9990 8y ago
      Except that selling data to third parties has never been Microsoft’s MO. It’s always been about getting fat checks from the worlds largest companies’ IT departments.
      - mjw1007 8y ago
        The whole github purchase is premised on the idea that Microsoft have changed their ways in the last few years. So it isn't safe to assume they aren't changing to a more Facebook/Google-like data-selling business model.
        bobbytherobot 8y ago
        Fair point. I'll counter that with if we are using history as an indication of future actions, then selling off personal data has not been Microsoft's course of evil action. Suppressing competitors, sure, selling personal data, no. Having dipped my toe briefly into the world of collecting and selling personal data, it is a rat-race way to try to make large sums of money. It is an absolute grind. I personally have a hard time seeing why Apple or Microsoft would decide to move away from making windfalls of money through direct purchases. Many startups fall into selling personal data because they can't crack the nut of getting people to pay them.
eeZah7Ux 8y ago
> That was already the case before Microsoft purchased GitHub. So why did they start to use it in the first place, if they had this concern? For the same reason many people use GitHub (or facebook): network effect.
- beauzero 8y ago
  Yes and we will have to see how they currate that network effect while drawing corporate value.

org3432 8y ago

Now the whole data set in GitHub, the metadata, being able to analyze all the projects may not be as open since it can conflict with other microsoft products, such as LinkedIn if you're looking for candidates, or possibly AI training data.

bobbytherobot 8y ago
Microsoft products already conflict with Microsoft products.

mtgx 8y ago

Maybe what he meant was one large corporation. It's usually the large players that start taking down accounts at will and have bogus takedown rules, because they are the largest and don't care about any one account.

pessimizer 8y ago

It was a bad idea in the first place, and one of the dangers was that this one failure point could end up controlled by a company like Microsoft. You can say that it was a bad idea for people to store all of their things in a warehouse with no sprinklers or smoke detectors, but after it's been done, it's pretty silly to scold people for not continuing to store things in a warehouse that is currently on fire.

geezerjay 8y ago
> for not continuing to store things in a warehouse that is currently on fire. That metaphor is rather silly. Microsoft's purchase of github didn't set the metaphorical warehouse on fire. At most, it only raised attention to the fire hazard that was present since the warehouse was created. What next? People will complain about the privacy risks presented in services such as Dropbox only after some major corportion buys it?
- bonesss 8y ago
  I think it's blindingly naive to think that, on any meaningful timeline, a company like GitHub wouldn't be mining their userbase for trends and capitalising on them by selling it to third parties... There's nothing shady about using corporate information and user metadata to provide value to others, but you have to imagine that MS owning that data set is highly similar to MS buying it from GitHub. Up to the minute analysis of a meaningful percentage of the development ecosphere is highly valuable. Selling reports, analysis, or monitoring is a natural expansion of GitHubs business model. Maybe having this dataset go into the same warehouse as LinkedIn strikes some as scary, but I think one actor who is less reliant on direct revenue will have less incentive to push boundaries and spread that info to as many other actors as possible... So whatever privacy issue people feel has arisen here, it's likely just refined itself a little to be much narrower but only a little deeper. Fundamentally, if you don't trust MS with your goodies you shouldn't trust GitHub with your data at all. GitHub Enterprise might be a better solution ;)
  - ggg9990 8y ago
    Except that selling data to third parties has never been Microsoft’s MO. It’s always been about getting fat checks from the worlds largest companies’ IT departments.
    - mjw1007 8y ago
      The whole github purchase is premised on the idea that Microsoft have changed their ways in the last few years. So it isn't safe to assume they aren't changing to a more Facebook/Google-like data-selling business model.
      - bobbytherobot 8y ago
        Fair point. I'll counter that with if we are using history as an indication of future actions, then selling off personal data has not been Microsoft's course of evil action. Suppressing competitors, sure, selling personal data, no. Having dipped my toe briefly into the world of collecting and selling personal data, it is a rat-race way to try to make large sums of money. It is an absolute grind. I personally have a hard time seeing why Apple or Microsoft would decide to move away from making windfalls of money through direct purchases. Many startups fall into selling personal data because they can't crack the nut of getting people to pay them.

eeZah7Ux 8y ago

> That was already the case before Microsoft purchased GitHub. So why did they start to use it in the first place, if they had this concern? For the same reason many people use GitHub (or facebook): network effect.

beauzero 8y ago
Yes and we will have to see how they currate that network effect while drawing corporate value.