5 ms·

I like how Microsoft basically just acquired a whole slew of open source tools and no one seems to notice or care.

by aforty 6y ago

judge2020 6y ago
There were Microsoft discussions in both the GH thread[0] and the NPM thread[1]. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17221527 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17221527 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22594549 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22594549
metreo 6y ago
Why should anyone? Open source has always been about freedom. MS hasn't acquired the tools to my knowledge, they've acquired popular infrastructure built around tools. Anyone can still start GutBub based on the same `git` source tomorrow if they wanted. To be sure a lot of this may be about talent as well. They may need to be liked in the community otherwise they have a hard time hiring top talent. They are buying a community since they probably couldn't build it themselves.
- frandroid 6y ago
  Because open source has always been defined in its very definition by its definition to the for-profit software industry, which Microsoft basically invented? Because in spite of having made a turn towards open source, Microsoft once treated it like a mortal enemy, akin to cancer? Because of how other large companies like Google have smothered open source projects? I'm personally not worried about the acquisition (I think it's a net positive for the community), but there are plenty of reasons to discuss this interaction.
  - metreo 6y ago
    It's a common misconception that open source is antithetical to profit. The concern is really about the freedom to inspect, modify and distribute the codes which run your computer without restriction. I hear you, I think MS is prone to mismanage the nicest things we have. And yes part of this will be some PR mess up. We definitely cannot trust a large cash reserve to guarantee the survival of these technologies, it's just not how businesses work.
    - frandroid 6y ago
      #notallopensource, but the Free Software movement part of open source, for sure, you know? Okay I've re-read my original comment, you're right, it was too encompassing.
  - DeathArrow 6y ago
    Even people change, why do you find weird that companies change? >Because in spite of having made a turn towards open source, Microsoft once treated it like a mortal enemy, akin to cancer? MS was in the business of selling operating systems and desktop software. Not only they realized that open source doesn't threaten that territory (remember year of the Linux desktop?), but they've changed the revenue model and are making much more money now from selling services than by selling software. >Because of how other large companies like Google have smothered open source projects? Why should we judge what one company does based on what other company does? I am sure no company does something for "good of humanity" but to earn money. What matters is if in the process of making money, they also do good things or bad things. Microsoft has stopped doing bad things and started doing good things. I only hope more companies will follow.
    - frandroid 6y ago
      Parent was saying "why discuss this at all?" and I'm saying here are some reasons! And you're doubling down while... having the discussion. Case closed. :)
cbhl 6y ago
I feel like Microsoft has actually built a sustainable, developer-friendly, OSS-friendly business around Azure, Visual Studio, and GitHub. I could imagine other potential acquirers just wanting to do an acquihire, and deprecating the service a few months or years later (when the technical debt is too high to continue running the code in maintenance mode).
exolymph 6y ago
You realize that you're commenting on a story that either is or was on the front page of Hacker News, right? Are we no one?

I like how Microsoft basically just acquired a whole slew of open source tools and no one seems to notice or care.

by aforty 6y ago

I like how Microsoft basically just acquired a whole slew of open source tools and no one seems to notice or care.

judge2020 6y ago

There were Microsoft discussions in both the GH thread[0] and the NPM thread[1]. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17221527 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17221527 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22594549 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22594549

metreo 6y ago

Why should anyone? Open source has always been about freedom. MS hasn't acquired the tools to my knowledge, they've acquired popular infrastructure built around tools. Anyone can still start GutBub based on the same `git` source tomorrow if they wanted. To be sure a lot of this may be about talent as well. They may need to be liked in the community otherwise they have a hard time hiring top talent. They are buying a community since they probably couldn't build it themselves.

frandroid 6y ago
Because open source has always been defined in its very definition by its definition to the for-profit software industry, which Microsoft basically invented? Because in spite of having made a turn towards open source, Microsoft once treated it like a mortal enemy, akin to cancer? Because of how other large companies like Google have smothered open source projects? I'm personally not worried about the acquisition (I think it's a net positive for the community), but there are plenty of reasons to discuss this interaction.
- metreo 6y ago
  It's a common misconception that open source is antithetical to profit. The concern is really about the freedom to inspect, modify and distribute the codes which run your computer without restriction. I hear you, I think MS is prone to mismanage the nicest things we have. And yes part of this will be some PR mess up. We definitely cannot trust a large cash reserve to guarantee the survival of these technologies, it's just not how businesses work.
  - frandroid 6y ago
    #notallopensource, but the Free Software movement part of open source, for sure, you know? Okay I've re-read my original comment, you're right, it was too encompassing.
- DeathArrow 6y ago
  Even people change, why do you find weird that companies change? >Because in spite of having made a turn towards open source, Microsoft once treated it like a mortal enemy, akin to cancer? MS was in the business of selling operating systems and desktop software. Not only they realized that open source doesn't threaten that territory (remember year of the Linux desktop?), but they've changed the revenue model and are making much more money now from selling services than by selling software. >Because of how other large companies like Google have smothered open source projects? Why should we judge what one company does based on what other company does? I am sure no company does something for "good of humanity" but to earn money. What matters is if in the process of making money, they also do good things or bad things. Microsoft has stopped doing bad things and started doing good things. I only hope more companies will follow.
  - frandroid 6y ago
    Parent was saying "why discuss this at all?" and I'm saying here are some reasons! And you're doubling down while... having the discussion. Case closed. :)

cbhl 6y ago

I feel like Microsoft has actually built a sustainable, developer-friendly, OSS-friendly business around Azure, Visual Studio, and GitHub. I could imagine other potential acquirers just wanting to do an acquihire, and deprecating the service a few months or years later (when the technical debt is too high to continue running the code in maintenance mode).

exolymph 6y ago

You realize that you're commenting on a story that either is or was on the front page of Hacker News, right? Are we no one?