4 ms·

On one hand, I think the history is enough to be highly skeptical of MS: how many times does someone have to show you who they are before you believe it? But t

by skohan 7y ago

On one hand, I think the history is enough to be highly skeptical of MS: how many times does someone have to show you who they are before you believe it? But that aside, I don't see how any corporation should be trusted to host such a large percentage of OSS. Whether it's a year from now or 10 years from now, what do you expect to happen when Microsoft's material interests cease to align with supporting OSS? Do you think they will subvert their own interests in the support of some "greater good"? Given the history of how corporations behave, I think that would be very unlikely.

brennebeck 7y ago
I think your second point is really the crux of the matter. Even an independent GitHub controls far too much of the ecosystem. There’s really no way around that in the current situation. Had they followed a similar path as Gitlab, we might not be having this discussion (regardless of an acquisition). Sourceforge is an obvious point here.
ithkuil 7y ago
> how many times does someone have to show you who they are before you believe it? It's dangerous to anthropomorphise corporations (or nations). Yes, corporate culture is sticky but you can more easily change a corporate culture by a radical demographics change both at the base and at the top, and redesigning the incentives. That goes both ways and it's why you cannot have inherently "good" corporations either (no matter what their positive track record is).
- skohan 7y ago
  You're absolutely right, and I was probably being a bit too poetic in my wording. What I mean to say more precisely is: when a corporation has a documented history of using benevolence to acquire market share, and then leveraging that market share to pivot in an anti-competitive, anti-consumer direction, then it is more rational to approach their new-found benevolence with skepticism rather than optimism.

by skohan 7y ago

brennebeck 7y ago

I think your second point is really the crux of the matter. Even an independent GitHub controls far too much of the ecosystem. There’s really no way around that in the current situation. Had they followed a similar path as Gitlab, we might not be having this discussion (regardless of an acquisition). Sourceforge is an obvious point here.

ithkuil 7y ago

> how many times does someone have to show you who they are before you believe it? It's dangerous to anthropomorphise corporations (or nations). Yes, corporate culture is sticky but you can more easily change a corporate culture by a radical demographics change both at the base and at the top, and redesigning the incentives. That goes both ways and it's why you cannot have inherently "good" corporations either (no matter what their positive track record is).

skohan 7y ago
You're absolutely right, and I was probably being a bit too poetic in my wording. What I mean to say more precisely is: when a corporation has a documented history of using benevolence to acquire market share, and then leveraging that market share to pivot in an anti-competitive, anti-consumer direction, then it is more rational to approach their new-found benevolence with skepticism rather than optimism.