3 ms·

Some programmers were concerned about how Microsoft -- historically critical of open-source tools like GitHub and GitLab -- would change the platform as its new

• bshimmin 8y ago
  It's a misleading sentence, I would say - Steve Ballmer was very critical of open source (he once called Linux "a cancer"), but this was certainly "historically", ie. quite some years before GitHub and GitLab even existed.
• kgwgk 8y ago
  Critical of open-source tools. For the benefit of the reader, they explain that GitHub and GitLab are (more or less) open-source tools.
  • OJFord 8y ago
    GitLab is more or less open source; GitHub isn't. (Though it is arguably an 'open source tool' - i.e. 'tool _for_ open source'...)
    • kgwgk 8y ago
      That’s why I said “more or less”. And apart from being used for open-source, GitHub is obviously built upon git (which is open source).
• petepete 8y ago
  Seeing as GitHub's never been open source I wouldn't worry too much about the overall accuracy this statement.
• majewsky 8y ago
  Microsoft was historically critical of open-source tools (though not GitHub or GitLab because those didn't exist at the time): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents
• TheLoneAdmin 8y ago
  There were the infamous Halloween documents from 20 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents
• aiCeivi9 8y ago
  This would make more sense: > historically critical of open-source tools that have its file hosted on GitHub and GitLab Maybe it was overzealous editor and simplified it too much.