7 ms·

GitHub will now fall under Microsoft's CoreAI team, which give some indication of GitHub's purpose and direction going forward.

dathinab 1y ago
right ... wtf We could barely convince the reviewers on the last review that using GitHub is okay as long as we take some extra steps, I guess we should prepare to switch to a different platform with the next review.
- whimsicalism 1y ago
  reviewers?
  - layer8 1y ago
    Auditors?
    - dathinab 1y ago
      yes auditors from a security audit
      - whimsicalism 1y ago
        you could barely convince your auditors that using github was okay? well, my opinion of security audits is reaffirmed
        anileated 1y ago
        Security audits are just theater. If they were not, you could not ever convince them that using a platform feeding unlicensed source (including apparently from private repositories) to their commercial LLM is ever a pass.
        shortrounddev2 1y ago
        Absolute theater. They do nothing to validate that you are compliant with whatever ISO cert you're pursuing. They make you install a root cert on your macbook and they say that's good enough to ensure compliance. You just attest that you don't do stupid shit like committing directly to master or testing in production and they believe you
        UK-AL 1y ago
        People test in production in all the time via Canary releases.
        dathinab 1y ago
        > compliant with whatever ISO cert you're pursuing ISO cert compatibility audits are very different from a proper security audit. And weather they do anything to check if depends on which you high, many of the slightly more expensive ones have the reputation to be "fast" and "overlook most issues". But that doesn't apply to all security audits (but most audits for ISO compatibility, like really it's bad). Anyway see my way to long answer about the on a sibling comment.
        shortrounddev2 1y ago
        I'm certain there are good firms out there which will actually give you a legit audit and make recommendations. But if the client is not actually interested in security, there will always be unscrupulous firms who will essentially sell you an ISO cert for no effort required. In my experience, most medium to small sized companies place little value in security
        marcosdumay 1y ago
        From a company with a long history of leaking private data... That AFAIK never even claimed to have fixed their side of the Solar Winds issue...
        whimsicalism 1y ago
        from private repos? they explicitly say they do not https://www.copilot.live/blog/does-github-copilot-use-your-code#githubs-privacy-policy https://www.copilot.live/blog/does-github-copilot-use-your-c...
        dathinab 1y ago
        we are EU based and have besides other attorney customers. Cloud Act and more then just one or two cases of the US engaging in industry espionage against their allies(1) makes it a high legal liability to use more or less any service from a US company even if it's in the EU and a EU daughter company On GitHub we only have some code, which always anyway goes through additional testing and analysis before hitting production, this is why it's barely okay. No code from GitHub directly goes to production. The only reason we ever where on GitHub is because we didn't always had sensitive customers and switching CI over is always a pain. So I don't know if imply them being incompetent for allowing GitHub or for wanting to not allow it, but both point have very good reasons. (1): And I mean cases before Trump, the US (as in top government, not people) was always a highly egoistic, egocentric ally which never hesitated to screw over their allays when it came to economical benefits. The main difference is that in the past the US cared (quite a bit) about upholding a image of "traditional" values like honesty, integrity and reliability. Especially when it would affect their trade routes.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
paxys 1y ago
The industry has collectively decided that AI is the future of all of software development, so this move shouldn't be a surprise.
layer8 1y ago
Some more indication: > “Just like how Bill [Gates] had this idea of Microsoft being a bunch of software developers building a bunch of software, I want our platform, for any enterprise or any organization, to be able to be the thing they turn into their own agent factory,” said Parikh [the CoreAI team lead]. That Bill Gates analogy seems rather far-fetched, though.
- bgwalter 1y ago
  And the prompt engineers running the agents will be sitting in Bangalore. Or perhaps outsourced to Infosys. Microsoft under Gates at least produced real things. I wonder when Apple gets an Indian CEO to facilitate outsourcing.
  - fragmede 1y ago
    It was the American CEO Tim Cook which spent some $250 billion investing in training in China, which is more than the Marshall plan (inflation adjusted) or the CHIPS act, for outsourcing the factories to China in which their products get produced.
    - coliveira 1y ago
      But that $250 billion gave them $3T in market cap, so it was a fantastic investment.
- 9dev 1y ago
  That sounds horrible. Who wants that??
  - radicalbyte 1y ago
    It sounds like the kind of plan which would come from the Xbox division.
  - apexalpha 1y ago
    Someone who expect to make a lot of money selling said Agents.
IshKebab 1y ago
You mean all of Microsoft's direction? Look at how VSCode changelogs have morphed from editing features to 90% AI.
- moomin 1y ago
  I can confidently predict that the breakout dev tool in the next few years will have LLM features, but won’t have forgotten stuff like editing features. As Claude Code has already demonstrated, you do t even need an editor for good LLM integration.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- rs186 1y ago
  Thank you, this does not get discussed enough on HN. I used to look forward to monthly releases of VSCode and actually read the changelog carefully to see what new features/enhancements I could make use of. These days I just glance and ignore it completely -- almost everything is Copilot, MCP blahblah. Such a disappointment. You would think with all the AI magic, they would deliver more "core editor" features/enhancement. No, just more Copilot.
  - sunaookami 1y ago
    Man this reminds me of the early days of Edge where MS actually made a good browser for a few months and then stuffed it full of bloatware, ads, a crypto wallet (!) and now AI (not even GOOD AI features).
  - arielcostas 1y ago
    Do you really miss stuff in VS Code's core editor? I mean, coming to think about it, VS Code feels "feature complete", I haven't found in other editors features that I thought "wish I had this in VS Code". Not to justify the whole changelog being about Copilot (isn't it supposed to be a separate extension anyway?), but I guess it's either that or going for a while without updates, or really small changes you'd probably not notice
6thbit 1y ago
They were already under CoreAI team. The verge has amended the article with a footnote correction to note that.
shortrounddev2 1y ago
I just switched from Github to Gitlab. For anyone who is interested in doing the same, but doubtful because of the effort required: Gitlab has a pretty good migration tool. You authenticate against your github account and gitlab will import all your repos for you. We've been using gitlab at work for a bit and the CI/CD took a little getting used to but I'm overall happy with Gitlab. Some people think a github presence is important for their personal portfolios/careers, but I've personally never seen any evidence that a recruiter or anyone has ever actually looked at my github profile. Plus I can just put gitlab on there instead now
- CharlieDigital 1y ago
  It's not that simple; their CI workflow architectures are completely different. The way projects and permissions work are completely different. The entire way GitLab organizes the taxonomy is different.
  - shortrounddev2 1y ago
    Oh sure for an organization with lots of ci/cd its a big deal. But for individuals who mostly just use github as a code repository for personal projects and dont have a ton of deployments, its real easy
- mark_l_watson 1y ago
  I have worked for companies using GitLab and I really liked it. I need to have just about a dozen of my repos that kind of have to be on GitHub because of integrations with third parties, but most would live fine on GitLab. EDIT: just looked, GitLab seems caught up in AI agent hype also, and have their prices gone up?
- preisschild 1y ago
  Gitlab seems to also be going into the "AI slop" direction, unfortunately, while core CI/CD features get sidelined... Forgejo/Codeberg seems interesting
  - 1y ago
the8472 1y ago
Commoditize your complement.
cnst 1y ago
This is kinda pretty ridiculous. Isn't GitHub's entire visibility and pervasiveness is entirely due to the OSS? So, now they're basically saying to OSS, "so long, and thanks for all the fish"?
- chrisco255 1y ago
  Github as a platform itself though, isn't open source.
- this15testingg 1y ago
  it seems like anyone continuing to use github is ok with providing free labor to Microsoft. Not that that wasn't the case already, but now it seems especially blatant. "open source" is just corporate welfare at this point.
martin-t 1y ago
When all public code including GPL and AGPL has been stolen and plagiarized already and the fabled artificial intelligence is nowhere to be seen, stealing all the private and proprietary code will surely make all the difference. It probably won't but reselling the code to its owners is still good business. Convince people that statistical models of copyrighted work (which can reproduce said copyrighted work both verbatim or disguised) are A"I" and sadly, somehow, most people seem OK with it.

dathinab 1y ago

right ... wtf We could barely convince the reviewers on the last review that using GitHub is okay as long as we take some extra steps, I guess we should prepare to switch to a different platform with the next review.

whimsicalism 1y ago
reviewers?
- layer8 1y ago
  Auditors?
  - dathinab 1y ago
    yes auditors from a security audit
    - whimsicalism 1y ago
      you could barely convince your auditors that using github was okay? well, my opinion of security audits is reaffirmed
      - anileated 1y ago
        Security audits are just theater. If they were not, you could not ever convince them that using a platform feeding unlicensed source (including apparently from private repositories) to their commercial LLM is ever a pass.
        shortrounddev2 1y ago
        Absolute theater. They do nothing to validate that you are compliant with whatever ISO cert you're pursuing. They make you install a root cert on your macbook and they say that's good enough to ensure compliance. You just attest that you don't do stupid shit like committing directly to master or testing in production and they believe you
        UK-AL 1y ago
        People test in production in all the time via Canary releases.
        dathinab 1y ago
        > compliant with whatever ISO cert you're pursuing ISO cert compatibility audits are very different from a proper security audit. And weather they do anything to check if depends on which you high, many of the slightly more expensive ones have the reputation to be "fast" and "overlook most issues". But that doesn't apply to all security audits (but most audits for ISO compatibility, like really it's bad). Anyway see my way to long answer about the on a sibling comment.
        shortrounddev2 1y ago
        I'm certain there are good firms out there which will actually give you a legit audit and make recommendations. But if the client is not actually interested in security, there will always be unscrupulous firms who will essentially sell you an ISO cert for no effort required. In my experience, most medium to small sized companies place little value in security
        marcosdumay 1y ago
        From a company with a long history of leaking private data... That AFAIK never even claimed to have fixed their side of the Solar Winds issue...
        whimsicalism 1y ago
        from private repos? they explicitly say they do not https://www.copilot.live/blog/does-github-copilot-use-your-code#githubs-privacy-policy https://www.copilot.live/blog/does-github-copilot-use-your-c...
      - dathinab 1y ago
        we are EU based and have besides other attorney customers. Cloud Act and more then just one or two cases of the US engaging in industry espionage against their allies(1) makes it a high legal liability to use more or less any service from a US company even if it's in the EU and a EU daughter company On GitHub we only have some code, which always anyway goes through additional testing and analysis before hitting production, this is why it's barely okay. No code from GitHub directly goes to production. The only reason we ever where on GitHub is because we didn't always had sensitive customers and switching CI over is always a pain. So I don't know if imply them being incompetent for allowing GitHub or for wanting to not allow it, but both point have very good reasons. (1): And I mean cases before Trump, the US (as in top government, not people) was always a highly egoistic, egocentric ally which never hesitated to screw over their allays when it came to economical benefits. The main difference is that in the past the US cared (quite a bit) about upholding a image of "traditional" values like honesty, integrity and reliability. Especially when it would affect their trade routes.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

paxys 1y ago

The industry has collectively decided that AI is the future of all of software development, so this move shouldn't be a surprise.

layer8 1y ago

Some more indication: > “Just like how Bill [Gates] had this idea of Microsoft being a bunch of software developers building a bunch of software, I want our platform, for any enterprise or any organization, to be able to be the thing they turn into their own agent factory,” said Parikh [the CoreAI team lead]. That Bill Gates analogy seems rather far-fetched, though.

bgwalter 1y ago
And the prompt engineers running the agents will be sitting in Bangalore. Or perhaps outsourced to Infosys. Microsoft under Gates at least produced real things. I wonder when Apple gets an Indian CEO to facilitate outsourcing.
- fragmede 1y ago
  It was the American CEO Tim Cook which spent some $250 billion investing in training in China, which is more than the Marshall plan (inflation adjusted) or the CHIPS act, for outsourcing the factories to China in which their products get produced.
  - coliveira 1y ago
    But that $250 billion gave them $3T in market cap, so it was a fantastic investment.
9dev 1y ago
That sounds horrible. Who wants that??
- radicalbyte 1y ago
  It sounds like the kind of plan which would come from the Xbox division.
- apexalpha 1y ago
  Someone who expect to make a lot of money selling said Agents.

IshKebab 1y ago

You mean all of Microsoft's direction? Look at how VSCode changelogs have morphed from editing features to 90% AI.

moomin 1y ago
I can confidently predict that the breakout dev tool in the next few years will have LLM features, but won’t have forgotten stuff like editing features. As Claude Code has already demonstrated, you do t even need an editor for good LLM integration.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
rs186 1y ago
Thank you, this does not get discussed enough on HN. I used to look forward to monthly releases of VSCode and actually read the changelog carefully to see what new features/enhancements I could make use of. These days I just glance and ignore it completely -- almost everything is Copilot, MCP blahblah. Such a disappointment. You would think with all the AI magic, they would deliver more "core editor" features/enhancement. No, just more Copilot.
- sunaookami 1y ago
  Man this reminds me of the early days of Edge where MS actually made a good browser for a few months and then stuffed it full of bloatware, ads, a crypto wallet (!) and now AI (not even GOOD AI features).
- arielcostas 1y ago
  Do you really miss stuff in VS Code's core editor? I mean, coming to think about it, VS Code feels "feature complete", I haven't found in other editors features that I thought "wish I had this in VS Code". Not to justify the whole changelog being about Copilot (isn't it supposed to be a separate extension anyway?), but I guess it's either that or going for a while without updates, or really small changes you'd probably not notice

6thbit 1y ago

They were already under CoreAI team. The verge has amended the article with a footnote correction to note that.

shortrounddev2 1y ago

I just switched from Github to Gitlab. For anyone who is interested in doing the same, but doubtful because of the effort required: Gitlab has a pretty good migration tool. You authenticate against your github account and gitlab will import all your repos for you. We've been using gitlab at work for a bit and the CI/CD took a little getting used to but I'm overall happy with Gitlab. Some people think a github presence is important for their personal portfolios/careers, but I've personally never seen any evidence that a recruiter or anyone has ever actually looked at my github profile. Plus I can just put gitlab on there instead now

CharlieDigital 1y ago
It's not that simple; their CI workflow architectures are completely different. The way projects and permissions work are completely different. The entire way GitLab organizes the taxonomy is different.
- shortrounddev2 1y ago
  Oh sure for an organization with lots of ci/cd its a big deal. But for individuals who mostly just use github as a code repository for personal projects and dont have a ton of deployments, its real easy
mark_l_watson 1y ago
I have worked for companies using GitLab and I really liked it. I need to have just about a dozen of my repos that kind of have to be on GitHub because of integrations with third parties, but most would live fine on GitLab. EDIT: just looked, GitLab seems caught up in AI agent hype also, and have their prices gone up?
preisschild 1y ago
Gitlab seems to also be going into the "AI slop" direction, unfortunately, while core CI/CD features get sidelined... Forgejo/Codeberg seems interesting
- 1y ago

the8472 1y ago

Commoditize your complement.

cnst 1y ago

This is kinda pretty ridiculous. Isn't GitHub's entire visibility and pervasiveness is entirely due to the OSS? So, now they're basically saying to OSS, "so long, and thanks for all the fish"?

chrisco255 1y ago
Github as a platform itself though, isn't open source.
this15testingg 1y ago
it seems like anyone continuing to use github is ok with providing free labor to Microsoft. Not that that wasn't the case already, but now it seems especially blatant. "open source" is just corporate welfare at this point.

martin-t 1y ago

When all public code including GPL and AGPL has been stolen and plagiarized already and the fabled artificial intelligence is nowhere to be seen, stealing all the private and proprietary code will surely make all the difference. It probably won't but reselling the code to its owners is still good business. Convince people that statistical models of copyrighted work (which can reproduce said copyrighted work both verbatim or disguised) are A"I" and sadly, somehow, most people seem OK with it.