10 ms·

Where are we seeing the extend or extinguish with GitHub? It's been 3.5 years and GitHub is just as compatible with git as it has ever been.

blacktriangle 5y ago
That's the trick, the git is open, but the metadata is what matters. Issues, PRs, integrations into various code auditing services. That's the whole "extend" bit.
- munk-a 5y ago
  That is somewhat fair - there aren't great alternatives to migrate issues and the like to today. But all of those bits of metadata are easy to pull out of the service via API hooks. If someone wanted to start a serious competitor to github that shares the same basic data model it'd be pretty trivial to write up migration aides. I don't disbelieve that it's possible for microsoft to severely restrict these - but entirely removing them is off the table unless they cut out a lot of value. Inter-service communication to third party review tools and CI/CD tools all depend strongly on those API hooks.
  - merpnderp 5y ago
    > If someone wanted to start a serious competitor to github that shares the same basic data model it'd be pretty trivial to write up migration aides. Like Gitlab? I assumed Gitlab would dominate after the MS purchase of Github, but I was incorrect that people wouldn't want to trust their data and personal projects to the epic abusers of privacy that is Microsoft.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      Well I don't think the personal projects are really a significant factor in terms of where MS's paychecks are coming from - they care more about the commercial subscribers. And, speaking as someone employed at a commercial subscriber, objecting to continuing to use github due to the microsoft acquisition when we use office for pretty much all document production is going to be a pretty hard argument.
  - gmueckl 5y ago
    There are really simple ways to play dirty with APIs like making sure that they are incomplete in subtle and inconvenient ways like leaving out some of the metadata. Hypothetical example: make it impossible to query tags on issues. You'd still be able to do most things through the API, but if you have a workflow that's heavily dependent on tags, the data is effectively siloed.
    - maccard 5y ago
      So to be clear, the proof the GitHub is extending is a hypothetical example of an incomplete api that is not based on an open standard?
      - gmueckl 5y ago
        I didn't want to prove anything. I just pointed out what is possible.
        maccard 5y ago
        Sorry, I misread the username and assumed you were the commentor I replied to. Yes, these things are _possible_ but there is no evidence or indication that they are happening with Github.
        gmueckl 5y ago
        I agree that there are no signs at the moment. Companies change over time, so a certain risk - however small - is present, as with all 3rd party services.
- whichquestion 5y ago
  Are there any foss initiatives to making these metadata bits portable?
  - harryvederci 5y ago
    https://fossil-scm.org/ https://fossil-scm.org/
- treis 5y ago
  What is going to be extinguished?
- maccard 5y ago
  By that logic any proprietary product that provides an interface with an open source tool is guilty. I think accusing MS of EEE in this case is a huge stretch; GitHub is a commercial product that uses a popular open source tool with 100% compatibility (that I'm aware of) and actively participates in the development and features of that tool. When Ms start implementing extensions to git that only work with GitHub, we can point fingers but accusing them of extending git to extinguish based on pull requests is baseless
  - fartcannon 5y ago
    there's never a stretch with Microsoft. It is always, and has always been the same play. You can make excuses all you like, but in the end they will attemtp to embrace, extend and extinguish all competition.
    - maccard 5y ago
      Wheh they show any signs of extending git, or extinguishing any other open source competitors, I will be standing there with you calling them out. Until then, they're developing an excellent product that people want to use, built with open tooling
      - blacktriangle 5y ago
        Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.
        maccard 5y ago
        I'm arguing against soundbytes here, which is really unfortunate and something I hoped would be above HN. It's very easy to shut down an argument with a soundbyte or a famous quote when you don't have any actual proof that history is repeating itself. The situation and landscape is _very_ different from the mid 90s, Microsoft are showing _no_ indication of being bad actors whatsoever, (in fact they're showing the exact opposite) and haven't done for at least a decade.
amatecha 5y ago
You know how they added Github CLI[0], right? There may be a time where you must use Github CLI instead of a "standard" git client to interact with Github projects. That would be the "extinguish" phase. Right now they have embraced and are extending (such as with Github CLI). [0] https://cli.github.com/ https://cli.github.com/
- grepfru_it 5y ago
  If you wish to leverage the advanced features of github, the CLI gives you direct access rather than rolling your own api client. git will always be a first class citizen at GIThub.. but how do you open, close, or comment on PRs with a standard git client? Edit: The last part came across a bit snarky, but I’m trying to stimulate the thought process. Such as leveraging GitHub Actions to automate all aspects of PRs via gitops instead of using the GitHub client. Many ways to avoid dependence of the CLI!
  - rhn_mk1 5y ago
    That sounds very much like the "extend" part of the process.
  - Ygg2 5y ago
    As another commenter pointed out, we're at extend part of embrace, extend, extinguish. This part is just making Github tools work easier than non Github. In extinguish phase - Git won't prevent GitHub from rejecting a commit if it doesn't contain <TrackingMethodSignature>.
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    It feels like an open source standard on top of git that defines how to do this stuff would be helpful to reduce lockin. I wonder if Fossil or Gitlab have something.
- maccard 5y ago
  I made this comment elsewhere [0], but by this logic anyone who builds an ecosystem for an open source tool should be accused of the EEE strategy. > There may be a time where you must use Github CLI instead of a "standard" git client to interact with Github projects So we're accusing MS of a slippery slope based on a phrase from 25 years ago, which there is absolutely zero proof or indication of them pursuing in the last decade (at least). When GitHub show the _slightest_ inclination to do anything of the sort, I will be standing there with you, screaming blue murder. As of right now, they're progressing the development of git, "embracing" the open standards that have been developed (lfs being exemplary) and have shown absolutely zero signs of extending git in incompatible ways. See elasticsearch [1] for what "extend" _actually_ looks like. > Right now they have embraced and are extending (such as with Github CLI). If they _hadn't_ embraced, people would be complaining that GH are forcing non-open standards to be used. I firmly disagree that the GH issue tracker and pull request management are an "extension" of git. They have nothing to do with git whatsoever. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28149098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28149098 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28110610 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28110610
prirun 5y ago
Microsoft plays a very long game. 3-4 years is not enough time to boil a frog; it takes much longer or the frog will realize what's happening. Be patient. Give them 10-15 years after their "We love Linux" shift and you'll see. They love it so much, they will own it. Just think of Microsoft like the Borg.
- ChicagoDave 5y ago
  Microsoft is a trillion dollar company in large part because they embraced open source. Azure is extraordinarily profitable. Why would they fuck with their number one audience, developers?
  - prirun 5y ago
    According to this site, Microsoft's profit is divided into thirds: https://www.investopedia.com/how-microsoft-makes-money-4798809 https://www.investopedia.com/how-microsoft-makes-money-47988... A third is for Office, a third for cloud, and a third is Windows. IMO Microsoft is a trillion-dollar company because of their long monopoly with Windows. It's so entrenched that their "punishment" for abusing their monopoly position (according to the DOJ) was to give all schools free copies of Microsoft Office, thereby forcing every parent to own a copy of Microsoft office to be able to read reports from their kids' schools. Ingenious! You know why they would fuck with developers? Because developers have choices now, and Microsoft doesn't like it when anyone has a choice besides Microsoft. They are remedying that.

blacktriangle 5y ago

That's the trick, the git is open, but the metadata is what matters. Issues, PRs, integrations into various code auditing services. That's the whole "extend" bit.

munk-a 5y ago
That is somewhat fair - there aren't great alternatives to migrate issues and the like to today. But all of those bits of metadata are easy to pull out of the service via API hooks. If someone wanted to start a serious competitor to github that shares the same basic data model it'd be pretty trivial to write up migration aides. I don't disbelieve that it's possible for microsoft to severely restrict these - but entirely removing them is off the table unless they cut out a lot of value. Inter-service communication to third party review tools and CI/CD tools all depend strongly on those API hooks.
- merpnderp 5y ago
  > If someone wanted to start a serious competitor to github that shares the same basic data model it'd be pretty trivial to write up migration aides. Like Gitlab? I assumed Gitlab would dominate after the MS purchase of Github, but I was incorrect that people wouldn't want to trust their data and personal projects to the epic abusers of privacy that is Microsoft.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    Well I don't think the personal projects are really a significant factor in terms of where MS's paychecks are coming from - they care more about the commercial subscribers. And, speaking as someone employed at a commercial subscriber, objecting to continuing to use github due to the microsoft acquisition when we use office for pretty much all document production is going to be a pretty hard argument.
- gmueckl 5y ago
  There are really simple ways to play dirty with APIs like making sure that they are incomplete in subtle and inconvenient ways like leaving out some of the metadata. Hypothetical example: make it impossible to query tags on issues. You'd still be able to do most things through the API, but if you have a workflow that's heavily dependent on tags, the data is effectively siloed.
  - maccard 5y ago
    So to be clear, the proof the GitHub is extending is a hypothetical example of an incomplete api that is not based on an open standard?
    - gmueckl 5y ago
      I didn't want to prove anything. I just pointed out what is possible.
      - maccard 5y ago
        Sorry, I misread the username and assumed you were the commentor I replied to. Yes, these things are _possible_ but there is no evidence or indication that they are happening with Github.
        gmueckl 5y ago
        I agree that there are no signs at the moment. Companies change over time, so a certain risk - however small - is present, as with all 3rd party services.
whichquestion 5y ago
Are there any foss initiatives to making these metadata bits portable?
- harryvederci 5y ago
  https://fossil-scm.org/ https://fossil-scm.org/
treis 5y ago
What is going to be extinguished?
maccard 5y ago
By that logic any proprietary product that provides an interface with an open source tool is guilty. I think accusing MS of EEE in this case is a huge stretch; GitHub is a commercial product that uses a popular open source tool with 100% compatibility (that I'm aware of) and actively participates in the development and features of that tool. When Ms start implementing extensions to git that only work with GitHub, we can point fingers but accusing them of extending git to extinguish based on pull requests is baseless
- fartcannon 5y ago
  there's never a stretch with Microsoft. It is always, and has always been the same play. You can make excuses all you like, but in the end they will attemtp to embrace, extend and extinguish all competition.
  - maccard 5y ago
    Wheh they show any signs of extending git, or extinguishing any other open source competitors, I will be standing there with you calling them out. Until then, they're developing an excellent product that people want to use, built with open tooling
    - blacktriangle 5y ago
      Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.
      - maccard 5y ago
        I'm arguing against soundbytes here, which is really unfortunate and something I hoped would be above HN. It's very easy to shut down an argument with a soundbyte or a famous quote when you don't have any actual proof that history is repeating itself. The situation and landscape is _very_ different from the mid 90s, Microsoft are showing _no_ indication of being bad actors whatsoever, (in fact they're showing the exact opposite) and haven't done for at least a decade.

amatecha 5y ago

You know how they added Github CLI[0], right? There may be a time where you must use Github CLI instead of a "standard" git client to interact with Github projects. That would be the "extinguish" phase. Right now they have embraced and are extending (such as with Github CLI). [0] https://cli.github.com/ https://cli.github.com/

grepfru_it 5y ago
If you wish to leverage the advanced features of github, the CLI gives you direct access rather than rolling your own api client. git will always be a first class citizen at GIThub.. but how do you open, close, or comment on PRs with a standard git client? Edit: The last part came across a bit snarky, but I’m trying to stimulate the thought process. Such as leveraging GitHub Actions to automate all aspects of PRs via gitops instead of using the GitHub client. Many ways to avoid dependence of the CLI!
- rhn_mk1 5y ago
  That sounds very much like the "extend" part of the process.
- Ygg2 5y ago
  As another commenter pointed out, we're at extend part of embrace, extend, extinguish. This part is just making Github tools work easier than non Github. In extinguish phase - Git won't prevent GitHub from rejecting a commit if it doesn't contain <TrackingMethodSignature>.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  It feels like an open source standard on top of git that defines how to do this stuff would be helpful to reduce lockin. I wonder if Fossil or Gitlab have something.
maccard 5y ago
I made this comment elsewhere [0], but by this logic anyone who builds an ecosystem for an open source tool should be accused of the EEE strategy. > There may be a time where you must use Github CLI instead of a "standard" git client to interact with Github projects So we're accusing MS of a slippery slope based on a phrase from 25 years ago, which there is absolutely zero proof or indication of them pursuing in the last decade (at least). When GitHub show the _slightest_ inclination to do anything of the sort, I will be standing there with you, screaming blue murder. As of right now, they're progressing the development of git, "embracing" the open standards that have been developed (lfs being exemplary) and have shown absolutely zero signs of extending git in incompatible ways. See elasticsearch [1] for what "extend" _actually_ looks like. > Right now they have embraced and are extending (such as with Github CLI). If they _hadn't_ embraced, people would be complaining that GH are forcing non-open standards to be used. I firmly disagree that the GH issue tracker and pull request management are an "extension" of git. They have nothing to do with git whatsoever. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28149098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28149098 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28110610 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28110610

prirun 5y ago

Microsoft plays a very long game. 3-4 years is not enough time to boil a frog; it takes much longer or the frog will realize what's happening. Be patient. Give them 10-15 years after their "We love Linux" shift and you'll see. They love it so much, they will own it. Just think of Microsoft like the Borg.

ChicagoDave 5y ago
Microsoft is a trillion dollar company in large part because they embraced open source. Azure is extraordinarily profitable. Why would they fuck with their number one audience, developers?
- prirun 5y ago
  According to this site, Microsoft's profit is divided into thirds: https://www.investopedia.com/how-microsoft-makes-money-4798809 https://www.investopedia.com/how-microsoft-makes-money-47988... A third is for Office, a third for cloud, and a third is Windows. IMO Microsoft is a trillion-dollar company because of their long monopoly with Windows. It's so entrenched that their "punishment" for abusing their monopoly position (according to the DOJ) was to give all schools free copies of Microsoft Office, thereby forcing every parent to own a copy of Microsoft office to be able to read reports from their kids' schools. Ingenious! You know why they would fuck with developers? Because developers have choices now, and Microsoft doesn't like it when anyone has a choice besides Microsoft. They are remedying that.