6 ms·

I do not understand why Microsoft finances this. I understand the hosting as a specialized social platform, but GitHub Actions vs. Azure DevOps Pipelines are a

by oaiey 7y ago

I do not understand why Microsoft finances this. I understand the hosting as a specialized social platform, but GitHub Actions vs. Azure DevOps Pipelines are a duplicated effort. Better integration for GitHub for the Azure DevOps suite would solve that in a similar way without duplication of capabilities.

Strom 7y ago
It's because there's no unified grand vision driving this and the GitHub team is an independent silo. Yes there will be duplicated efforts, but at least the GitHub login system doesn't get replaced with Microsoft Account login.
- jopsen 7y ago
  > but at least the GitHub login system doesn't get replaced with Microsoft Account login. That's a good example of a tiny change Microsoft could do, which would make me want to leave github, hehe :)
  - CodeM0nkey 7y ago
    They actually did the opposite and made it so you can log into basically any Microsoft service with a GitHub account.
meddlepal 7y ago
Some possibilities: - Market segmentation, the people on Azure DevOps are not likely to use GitHub Actions and vice versa. - Long term plan might be to bring both of them closer together. - Build good will (marketing).
- asdfman123 7y ago
  Azure DevOps already is moving towards YAML build configurations. I wouldn't doubt it if it was the exact same tech under the hood.
zenlikethat 7y ago
All roads lead to Azure. Github's user base is far bigger than Azure's user base, and Microsoft wants to eventually get as many people as possible buying IaaS (or equivalents). The next logical step after Github Actions for CI/CD is to offer Github as a place to run the production code too. You would be buying Azure with fewer steps. It's pretty arbitrary that we develop code in one place while then going off and using a separate suite of tools and processes to run it. Having a suite for everything in one place could be very appealing to the market.
- penagwin 7y ago
  If they added a button that was essentially just zeit now it would be revolutionary. Especially if they had a generous free tier. Imagine one click hosting for blogs, etc. Now THAT would certainly hook people in
  - zenlikethat 7y ago
    Exactly. First you are using Azure through Github actions and do all the leg work to develop Docker images, etc. to test your code. Then you start off hosting on a small free plan. Fast forward a bit and you're paying Azure $$$ because why learn all the IaaS esoterica when you can just click a button on Github.
  - rstat1 7y ago
    That sounds a bit like Github Pages which has been a thing for a while.
    - giobox 7y ago
      Sure, if your site is solely static content, which is all GitHub pages supports. You can’t run “production code”. I know some people use the service with a static site generator as a free way to host a blog, but it’s not really the same thing at all.
      - arsa 7y ago
jopsen 7y ago
That might be short sighted. Allowing github to grow and being careful about leveraging it is a wise in the long run. If github gets bloated with bad ideas and microsoft specific features the community will leave.
rvanmil 7y ago
I think (hope) they intentionally avoid tight integration with Microsoft branded stuff. Even at the slightest indication of such a thing happening, I bet it would lead to an exodus and outrage among developers, however irrational that might be.
- oaiey 7y ago
  Yeah... That is a reason I could imagine. Also the lack of hype in pipelines.
- Supermancho 7y ago
  This has been played out for decades before and since MSFT's containment to the desktop OS market, but also with most other capital-rich tech companies. The brand is already MSFT Github, it just hasn't changed the site masthead. MSFT's core strategy and future goals aren't opaque. There's only 2 paths that maximize profit. Either MS bundles it up into a MS toolchain alongside hobbled alternate toolchain support, or abandon Github in parts until it's decommissioned (no need to dilute your brand). Maybe I won't be alive to see it, but I left for Gitlab because I believe this is how Github will maybe survive.
ihnorton 7y ago
> Better integration for GitHub for the Azure DevOps suite One small improvement I would really appreciate is a reduction in the number of clicks required to reach the real build status page. Clicking "Details" on a status row for a travis build takes me directly to the summary on travis, whereas for azure it leads to a redundant summary page hosted on github first, and requires another click to actually reach azure.
dragonwriter 7y ago
Competing against yourself adds expense, but also gives you more ways to win. It can be better to capture more of the market and then converge products rather than letting someone else have the market. Or, if there are different specific needs in different niches in what is descriptively the same product class, don't converge and win in two markets that a naive analysis would have considered parts of the same market and lost part of by not meeting the different needs.

by oaiey 7y ago

Strom 7y ago

It's because there's no unified grand vision driving this and the GitHub team is an independent silo. Yes there will be duplicated efforts, but at least the GitHub login system doesn't get replaced with Microsoft Account login.

jopsen 7y ago
> but at least the GitHub login system doesn't get replaced with Microsoft Account login. That's a good example of a tiny change Microsoft could do, which would make me want to leave github, hehe :)
- CodeM0nkey 7y ago
  They actually did the opposite and made it so you can log into basically any Microsoft service with a GitHub account.

meddlepal 7y ago

Some possibilities: - Market segmentation, the people on Azure DevOps are not likely to use GitHub Actions and vice versa. - Long term plan might be to bring both of them closer together. - Build good will (marketing).

asdfman123 7y ago
Azure DevOps already is moving towards YAML build configurations. I wouldn't doubt it if it was the exact same tech under the hood.

zenlikethat 7y ago

All roads lead to Azure. Github's user base is far bigger than Azure's user base, and Microsoft wants to eventually get as many people as possible buying IaaS (or equivalents). The next logical step after Github Actions for CI/CD is to offer Github as a place to run the production code too. You would be buying Azure with fewer steps. It's pretty arbitrary that we develop code in one place while then going off and using a separate suite of tools and processes to run it. Having a suite for everything in one place could be very appealing to the market.

penagwin 7y ago
If they added a button that was essentially just zeit now it would be revolutionary. Especially if they had a generous free tier. Imagine one click hosting for blogs, etc. Now THAT would certainly hook people in
- zenlikethat 7y ago
  Exactly. First you are using Azure through Github actions and do all the leg work to develop Docker images, etc. to test your code. Then you start off hosting on a small free plan. Fast forward a bit and you're paying Azure $$$ because why learn all the IaaS esoterica when you can just click a button on Github.
- rstat1 7y ago
  That sounds a bit like Github Pages which has been a thing for a while.
  - giobox 7y ago
    Sure, if your site is solely static content, which is all GitHub pages supports. You can’t run “production code”. I know some people use the service with a static site generator as a free way to host a blog, but it’s not really the same thing at all.
    - arsa 7y ago

jopsen 7y ago

That might be short sighted. Allowing github to grow and being careful about leveraging it is a wise in the long run. If github gets bloated with bad ideas and microsoft specific features the community will leave.

rvanmil 7y ago

I think (hope) they intentionally avoid tight integration with Microsoft branded stuff. Even at the slightest indication of such a thing happening, I bet it would lead to an exodus and outrage among developers, however irrational that might be.

oaiey 7y ago
Yeah... That is a reason I could imagine. Also the lack of hype in pipelines.
Supermancho 7y ago
This has been played out for decades before and since MSFT's containment to the desktop OS market, but also with most other capital-rich tech companies. The brand is already MSFT Github, it just hasn't changed the site masthead. MSFT's core strategy and future goals aren't opaque. There's only 2 paths that maximize profit. Either MS bundles it up into a MS toolchain alongside hobbled alternate toolchain support, or abandon Github in parts until it's decommissioned (no need to dilute your brand). Maybe I won't be alive to see it, but I left for Gitlab because I believe this is how Github will maybe survive.

ihnorton 7y ago

> Better integration for GitHub for the Azure DevOps suite One small improvement I would really appreciate is a reduction in the number of clicks required to reach the real build status page. Clicking "Details" on a status row for a travis build takes me directly to the summary on travis, whereas for azure it leads to a redundant summary page hosted on github first, and requires another click to actually reach azure.

dragonwriter 7y ago

Competing against yourself adds expense, but also gives you more ways to win. It can be better to capture more of the market and then converge products rather than letting someone else have the market. Or, if there are different specific needs in different niches in what is descriptively the same product class, don't converge and win in two markets that a naive analysis would have considered parts of the same market and lost part of by not meeting the different needs.