4 ms·

GitHub built goodwill over the years. There were many controversies, but there were also many die-hard fans. That didn't evaporate overnight. Microsoft bough

GitHub built goodwill over the years. There were many controversies, but there were also many die-hard fans. That didn't evaporate overnight. Microsoft bought GitHub (and minted 3 billionaires in the process) specifically to acquire that goodwill and monetize it.

aliqot 4y ago
> acquire that goodwill and monetize it Embrace Extend <-- here Extinguish
- fluoridation 4y ago
  That's not what EEE refers to. "Embrace" does not mean "buy".
  - jrm4 4y ago
    It can, I think. The EEE concept is useful enough to go slightly outside its original intended use.
    - fluoridation 4y ago
      So the idea here is 1. Acquire company for tens of billions. 2. Intentionally ruin own investment. 3. ??? 4. PROFIT! ?
      - jrm4 4y ago
        There are a lot of less-than-optimal possible outcomes between "create the best possible free open source library" and "utterly ruin."
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        Well. 1. Acquire company for $7.5bn in stock, so fortunes are joined rather than cash paid 2. Still charge money for it 3. Create an AI product out of the open source bit of it, justifying the price tag, as well as build links to Microsoft dev tools to entice OSS back into the Microsoft ecosystem 4. Maybe profit, but almost certainly not loss
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  Uh, what's the extend that has happened since microsoft bought github? Do you mean copilot? I would not classify that as extending anything. It's just a thing they made. "Monetizing goodwill" is not an extend.
  - turtleyacht 4y ago
    > Microsoft <heart> Open Source
  - jrm4 4y ago
    Of course that's "extending." It's a very clever attack on open source generally.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      But it's not open source specific. Not in creation and definitely not in use. And the idea of the extend of EEE applying to all of open source at once, the way you could apply to a product or a standard or a protocol, doesn't really make sense.
      - jrm4 4y ago
        You're thinking way too narrowly. EEE doesn't require a specific plan -- if you look at the history of Microsoft engaging in EEE, you can see it's been much more experimental than you're suggesting. It's basically Microsoft saying "Here is a thing that looks like it might in some way eventually be a threat to our business model and/or we can make some money off of it -- let's get our hooks in now and see what happens, we have the money to do it."
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        But again, copilot does not get their hooks into open source any more than it gets their hooks into code in general. And they're not doing EEE against "code". EEE doesn't need a specific plan but it does need some kind of target standard. Getting into an emerging market, without specific kinds of integration or malfeasance, is just competition.
jacooper 4y ago
Its not good will, its features and comfort. Github has the UI that almost every developer is used to, easy to use CI/CD, great issue and Pull request handling. And more importantly, everything is free. Even Ignoring the value and the features, Employers don't ask for your git link, they ask for your GitHub account. And since most projects are on GitHub having all of your projects there tooz makes it easier to see all of your commits, making your profile look more active. That's without mentioning the ease of discovery and issue reporting since everyone has an account.
- jrm4 4y ago
  Agreed. And I think the road to technology hell is paved with convenience and "free."

aliqot 4y ago

> acquire that goodwill and monetize it Embrace Extend <-- here Extinguish

fluoridation 4y ago
That's not what EEE refers to. "Embrace" does not mean "buy".
- jrm4 4y ago
  It can, I think. The EEE concept is useful enough to go slightly outside its original intended use.
  - fluoridation 4y ago
    So the idea here is 1. Acquire company for tens of billions. 2. Intentionally ruin own investment. 3. ??? 4. PROFIT! ?
    - jrm4 4y ago
      There are a lot of less-than-optimal possible outcomes between "create the best possible free open source library" and "utterly ruin."
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      Well. 1. Acquire company for $7.5bn in stock, so fortunes are joined rather than cash paid 2. Still charge money for it 3. Create an AI product out of the open source bit of it, justifying the price tag, as well as build links to Microsoft dev tools to entice OSS back into the Microsoft ecosystem 4. Maybe profit, but almost certainly not loss
Dylan16807 4y ago
Uh, what's the extend that has happened since microsoft bought github? Do you mean copilot? I would not classify that as extending anything. It's just a thing they made. "Monetizing goodwill" is not an extend.
- turtleyacht 4y ago
  > Microsoft <heart> Open Source
- jrm4 4y ago
  Of course that's "extending." It's a very clever attack on open source generally.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    But it's not open source specific. Not in creation and definitely not in use. And the idea of the extend of EEE applying to all of open source at once, the way you could apply to a product or a standard or a protocol, doesn't really make sense.
    - jrm4 4y ago
      You're thinking way too narrowly. EEE doesn't require a specific plan -- if you look at the history of Microsoft engaging in EEE, you can see it's been much more experimental than you're suggesting. It's basically Microsoft saying "Here is a thing that looks like it might in some way eventually be a threat to our business model and/or we can make some money off of it -- let's get our hooks in now and see what happens, we have the money to do it."
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        But again, copilot does not get their hooks into open source any more than it gets their hooks into code in general. And they're not doing EEE against "code". EEE doesn't need a specific plan but it does need some kind of target standard. Getting into an emerging market, without specific kinds of integration or malfeasance, is just competition.

jacooper 4y ago

Its not good will, its features and comfort. Github has the UI that almost every developer is used to, easy to use CI/CD, great issue and Pull request handling. And more importantly, everything is free. Even Ignoring the value and the features, Employers don't ask for your git link, they ask for your GitHub account. And since most projects are on GitHub having all of your projects there tooz makes it easier to see all of your commits, making your profile look more active. That's without mentioning the ease of discovery and issue reporting since everyone has an account.

jrm4 4y ago
Agreed. And I think the road to technology hell is paved with convenience and "free."