Microsoft's Interest In Buying GitHub Draws Backlash From Developers 256
The supposed acquisition of popular code repository GitHub by Microsoft has drawn an unprecedented backlash from the developer community. Over the weekend, after Bloomberg reported that the two companies could make the announcement as soon as Monday, hundreds of developers took to forums and social media to express their disappointment, with many saying that they would be leaving the platform if the deal goes through.
So why so much outrage? In a conversation with Slashdot, software developer and student Sean said that he believes a deal of such capacity would be bad for the open source community. "They've shown time and time again that they can't be trusted," he said. Sean and many other believe that Microsoft would eventually start telemetry program on the code repository. "Aside from Microsoft not being trustworthy to the open source community, I'm sure they'll add tracking and possibly even ads to all the sites within GitHub. As well as possibly use it to push LinkedIn (which they own)," he said. Ryan Hoover, the founder of ProductHunt, wrote on Sunday, "Anecdotally, the developer community is very unapproving of this move. I'm curious how Microsoft manages this and how GitHub changes (or doesn't change)." Even as Microsoft has "embraced" the open source community in the recent years (under the leadership of Mr. Nadella), for many developers, it will take time -- if at all -- to forget the company's past closed-ecosystem approach. Just this weekend, a developer accused Microsoft of stealing his code.
A petition that seeks to "stop Microsoft from buying Github" had garnered support from more than 400 developers. Prominent developer Andre Staltz said, "If you're still optimistic about the Microsoft-GitHub acquisition, consider this: They didn't ask your opinion not even a single bit, even though it was primarily your commits, stars, and repositories which made GH become a valuable platform." More importantly, if the comments left on Slashdot, Reddit, and HackerNews, places that overwhelmingly count developers and other IT industry experts among their audience, are anything to go by, Microsoft better has a good plan on how it intends to operate GitHub after the buyout. Security reporter Catalin Cimpanu said, "LinkedIn has turned into a slow-loading junk after the Microsoft acquisition. I can only imagine what awaits GitHub." On his part, Mat Velloso, who is technical advisor to CTO at Microsoft, said, "I don't think people understand how many of us at Microsoft love GitHub to the bottom of our hearts. If anybody decided to mess with that community, there would be a riot to say the least."
Jacques Mattheij: Companies that are too big to fail and that lose money are a dangerous combination, people have warned about GitHub becoming as large as it did as problematic because it concentrates too much of the power to make or break the open source world in a single entity, moreso because there were valid questions about GitHubs financial viability. The model that GitHub has -- sell their services to closed source companies but provide the service for free for open source groups -- is only a good one if the closed source companies bring in enough funds to sustain the model. Some sort of solution should have been found -- preferably in collaboration with the community -- not an 'exit' to one of the biggest sharks in the tank. So, here is what is wrong with this deal and why anybody active in the open source community should be upset that Microsoft is going to be the steward of this large body of code. For starters, Microsoft has a very long history of abusing its position vis-a-vis open source and other companies. I'm sure you'll be able to tell I'm a cranky old guy by looking up the dates to some of these references, but 'new boss, same as the old boss' applies as far as I'm concerned. Yes, the new boss is a nicer guy but it's the same corporate entity. Update: It's official. Microsoft has acquired GitHub for a whopping sum of $7.5B.
So why so much outrage? In a conversation with Slashdot, software developer and student Sean said that he believes a deal of such capacity would be bad for the open source community. "They've shown time and time again that they can't be trusted," he said. Sean and many other believe that Microsoft would eventually start telemetry program on the code repository. "Aside from Microsoft not being trustworthy to the open source community, I'm sure they'll add tracking and possibly even ads to all the sites within GitHub. As well as possibly use it to push LinkedIn (which they own)," he said. Ryan Hoover, the founder of ProductHunt, wrote on Sunday, "Anecdotally, the developer community is very unapproving of this move. I'm curious how Microsoft manages this and how GitHub changes (or doesn't change)." Even as Microsoft has "embraced" the open source community in the recent years (under the leadership of Mr. Nadella), for many developers, it will take time -- if at all -- to forget the company's past closed-ecosystem approach. Just this weekend, a developer accused Microsoft of stealing his code.
A petition that seeks to "stop Microsoft from buying Github" had garnered support from more than 400 developers. Prominent developer Andre Staltz said, "If you're still optimistic about the Microsoft-GitHub acquisition, consider this: They didn't ask your opinion not even a single bit, even though it was primarily your commits, stars, and repositories which made GH become a valuable platform." More importantly, if the comments left on Slashdot, Reddit, and HackerNews, places that overwhelmingly count developers and other IT industry experts among their audience, are anything to go by, Microsoft better has a good plan on how it intends to operate GitHub after the buyout. Security reporter Catalin Cimpanu said, "LinkedIn has turned into a slow-loading junk after the Microsoft acquisition. I can only imagine what awaits GitHub." On his part, Mat Velloso, who is technical advisor to CTO at Microsoft, said, "I don't think people understand how many of us at Microsoft love GitHub to the bottom of our hearts. If anybody decided to mess with that community, there would be a riot to say the least."
Jacques Mattheij: Companies that are too big to fail and that lose money are a dangerous combination, people have warned about GitHub becoming as large as it did as problematic because it concentrates too much of the power to make or break the open source world in a single entity, moreso because there were valid questions about GitHubs financial viability. The model that GitHub has -- sell their services to closed source companies but provide the service for free for open source groups -- is only a good one if the closed source companies bring in enough funds to sustain the model. Some sort of solution should have been found -- preferably in collaboration with the community -- not an 'exit' to one of the biggest sharks in the tank. So, here is what is wrong with this deal and why anybody active in the open source community should be upset that Microsoft is going to be the steward of this large body of code. For starters, Microsoft has a very long history of abusing its position vis-a-vis open source and other companies. I'm sure you'll be able to tell I'm a cranky old guy by looking up the dates to some of these references, but 'new boss, same as the old boss' applies as far as I'm concerned. Yes, the new boss is a nicer guy but it's the same corporate entity. Update: It's official. Microsoft has acquired GitHub for a whopping sum of $7.5B.
Where is the Bill Gates Borg icon?? (Score:3, Funny)
If we are going back to the 90s, let's do it properly.. :P
Re: (Score:2)
Trust (Score:5, Insightful)
If you require trust, you shouldn't have used GitHub in the first place.
Re:Trust (Score:5, Insightful)
As a non-hater of all things Microsoft. Microsoft acquiring Git Hub is concerning for much different reasons.
1. If Git hub doesn’t bring in the money a company like Microsoft will just kill it.
2. Like Skype and linked in There will be changes to bring it into its ecosystem. Preferring updates to its platforms and delaying others.
3. How much tolerance will it have for competing/illegal products. Due to the complexity of licensing rules it is easy to break a license when developing something. This may not make it to the final release version as an audit would show you that these parts are in violation. But MS is protective of its IP so could the project of some teen learning how to code something more complex be part of a lawsuit from an MS level check of IP violations?
This would be the same for Apple, Google, Bank of America, GE...
Re:Trust (Score:5, Insightful)
If Git hub doesn’t bring in the money a company like Microsoft will just kill it
If it doesn't bring money, it's doomed anyway. Nobody's going to run servers for charity.
Re: (Score:2)
Well lets rephrase it.
If Git Hub doesn't bring in a profit margin in parity with its other units.
Companies drop units not because they are not bringing in profit. If you revenue is $0.01 more then your expenses that is profit. However if you want to put your time and resources behind something in the company. And you find all the other units bring in millions of dollars in profit. Why invest your resources in the lower profit unit.
Now this may be good deal for an other company where they are a not-for pro
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Trust (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt they have bought githubto save on the enterprise plans they were using.
That $7.5bn will be to integrate LinkedIn so they can get even more jobs and code data, link your accounts and then they can sell advertising to you (or recruitment agents) to hassle you constantly to get a new job.
I have no doubt github will continue to work as before, but I imagine it'll get tarnished round the edges with commercialised services.
the only good thing would be if VSTS get chucked in favour of a github-based connection instead!
Re: (Score:2)
GitHub is a repository of interesting Software Engineering data. Especially if you have access to the private repositories. Its a goldmine for anyone seeking to do research on such matters.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody's going to run servers for charity.
Well, nobody aside from literally every single charity in the world and millions of other not-for-profit entities. But you're right, other than them absolutely no one would ever do that. Unless it promotes some agenda other than making money. But obviously there's no such thing.
Re: (Score:2)
1. If Git hub doesn’t bring in the money a company like Microsoft will just kill it.
Microsoft has been migrating migrating from team foundation to git https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org] .net or Win Forms -> WPF all over again. Microsoft is betting at Git as their future version manager.
Even if they don't directly say it. This is COM ->
Visual Studio is nicely integrated with git, with commit shortcuts next to code blocks so you know faster who to yell at if something is brakes.
With this purchase their are pulling all the enterprise clients into their cloud. And they may mainta
Re: (Score:2)
As a non-hater of all things Microsoft. Microsoft acquiring Git Hub is concerning for much different reasons.
1. If Git hub doesn’t bring in the money a company like Microsoft will just kill it.
They can't kill it. The site itself is open source. Literally anyone can clone it at literally any time. They can turn off the thing branded "github" if they wanted. But that's like saying you can kill Linux by acquiring and shutting down Redhat: Linux would keep going. And so would git/web-based git hosting services.
2. Like Skype and linked in There will be changes to bring it into its ecosystem. Preferring updates to its platforms and delaying others.
Not really comparable as these things have difference audiences and purposes and reasons for acquisition. GitHub seems like a pure brand name purchase since as I mentioned MS could have easily
Re: (Score:2)
They can't kill it. The site itself is open source. Literally anyone can clone it at literally any time. They can turn off the thing branded "github" if they wanted. But that's like saying you can kill Linux by acquiring and shutting down Redhat: Linux would keep going. And so would git/web-based git hosting services.
The site isn't 'open source', the source is 'open source', hence the name. People didn't use github for the source, they used it for having a repository they didn't have to pay for. I think that's what bugs me the most about the people who are whining about the acquisition. They're mostly just milking the free bandwidth.
Re:Trust (Score:4, Interesting)
Trust is not binary.
I trust my barber to cut my hair but I'll take her financial advice with a pinch of salt.
I trust Github enough to invest time in their free service.
Re: (Score:2)
I trust Github enough to invest time in their free service.
Sure, but that doesn't require much trust. If at some point you no longer like their free service, you can take your projects off and find another place.
On the other hand, if you use their paid service, and put your proprietary code on there, you put yourself in a position that the code may be leaked, or get lost in a fire, or that the terms and conditions change.
Re:Trust (Score:4, Interesting)
You are already in that position, the moment you host on a 3rd-party's servers. MS has decades of experience keeping NDAs and not leaking source code of customers. Github has essentially been lucky.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I use 3rd party servers only for disposable stuff. I use GitHub for a couple of open source projects that I created, but it's not the only copy, and I don't depend on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Algorithms are a different beast but most projects don't have secret sauces.
I understand just fine, thanks (Score:5, Funny)
"I don't think people understand how many of us at Microsoft love GitHub to the bottom of our hearts"
The love that suffocates. Just fuck off and die.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I bet they loved Skype too. I did, until they bought it and decided to turn it just as bad as MSN Messenger was before it was outcompeted by Skype.
Re: (Score:3)
This particular kind of love has its name. And gets you 6 months to 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
I dislike Microsoft, too, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I like how you try to portrait people who absolutely hate Microsoft as "emotional and irrational". Hating Microsoft is rational. It's a sign that you've been keeping up. Fuck, if you had behaved in real life the way Microsoft has, you'd have lost your teeth several times over, and be in prison for the rest of your life.
No, "phantomfive", there is nothing irrational about hating Microsoft. The irrational one is you, who are defending a known criminal, toxic and destructive entity and spit on their victims an
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Most of the complaining about Microsoft evil and problems are issues that happened 20 years ago.
I am not saying Microsoft is the good company we all should love. But most of the complaints about Microsoft are with resolved issue that were fixed for over a decade.
So yes I would agree with emotional outrage without fact expresses most Microsoft hate. I would say that applies for hate towards most anything.
Re:I dislike Microsoft, too, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not for nothing, but I've had apt-get or rpm upgrade for packages bust my system just as bad as Microsofts 'Forced Updates'. Love it when suddenly my system won't present your GUI because some update busted it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile...
https://www.cio.com/article/30... [cio.com]
https://www.infoworld.com/arti... [infoworld.com]
http://techrights.org/2017/04/... [techrights.org]
Hardly 20 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, a handle is tied to a posting history, so any handle *is* more trustworthy than "Anonymous Coward". "Anonymous Coward" is a mix is unidentified posters. A single handle represents one small (usually singular) collection of entities. The amount you should trust this is, indeed, limited, but it does have some weight. And it's also true that the amount you should trust anyone, including yourself, is limited...though to a lesser extent.
Re: (Score:2)
If Microsoft had been honorable for the last 10 years, I would be trusting them somewhat right now. They've actually, however, been the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong.
Companies have this thing called "culture". FFS, they even named the street where their HQ is situated the "One Microsoft way". Geddit? It's in their genes, or would be if they had any.
Changing a company is not anyway near as easy as changing the people who make "arsehole decisions". If for no other reason that there is a culture of "making arsehole decisions". Leaders who are known for this kind of behaviour attract similar people and repel people with different values which limits the selection. It'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A company is not a single entity, but it does have a consistent culture and a conditioned way of responding. Anyone who expects Microsoft to have changed without very good evidence doesn't understand the way organizations work. Anyone who does, and still defends Microsoft is reasonably suspected of having a hidden agenda.
Microsoft has consistently acted to abuse any trust given since the 1980's. I can't think of any proven exceptions, though of course it would be hard to prove that they hadn't abused a p
Re: (Score:2)
I *don't* use Microsoft products, do not agree to their EULAs, do not accept their cookies, etc.
No, I don't trust Microsoft. They've damaged me personally as well as in multiple ways that make news. If they acquire GitHub, I will proactively move away from it because I do not trust them to not damage me if they get a chance. But I'm quite angry with them for forcing me into this situation. It's true, they are not the only parties to this deal, or to the others that damaged me, but they are the common th
Re: I dislike Microsoft, too, but... (Score:2)
Seriously. I can't believe /. thought they could shill SourceForge expecting we'd all forgotten.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps it's the question of which is the lesser evil.
Seriously, I don't want to use SourceForge, but if the choice were between using SourceForge or trusting Microsoft....well, SourceForge wins easily.
Fortunately, that's a false dichotomy.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Aren't you overselling (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Microsoft would open source its Java competitor under better terms than Java...
Only to kill the Mono project consequently
2. Would fully adopt (as much as anyone other than Mozilla is) open web standards from the browser to all corporate products...
Guess you didn't try Edge yet..
3. Add a Linux compatibility layer...
Which is widely frowned upon. And while i use it regularly, i also think it's one of the E's in EEE.
4. Port Office to a platform like Android...
Only after all MS phone projects ended as a disaster. Mostly because they couldn't even keep it compatible with itself.
5. Be the 5th largest contributor to the Linux kernel...
Mostly for hypervisor stuff and other stuff related to compatibility with (closed) MS software. Meanwhile, NTFS support still suffers.
6. Enthusiastically sell cloud services based on Linux...
Because the customers must choose Microsoft above all. They can always switch to Windo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The future of MS is Azure, not Windows. So they don't care what tools you use, what platform you're on, as long as you deploy to Azure. From that perspective this buy makes perfect sense. Most of the dissenters are people who think Windows and Office are still the center of the MS universe.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Microsoft would open source its Java competitor under better terms than Java...
Only to kill the Mono project consequently
By open sourcing the original, just like we wanted in the first place.
2. Would fully adopt (as much as anyone other than Mozilla is) open web standards from the browser to all corporate products...
Guess you didn't try Edge yet..
Or Chrome, or Firefox, or any other web browser that adds new stuff on their own whim.
3. Add a Linux compatibility layer...
Which is widely frowned upon. And while i use it regularly, i also think it's one of the E's in EEE.
Total agreement here.
4. Port Office to a platform like Android...
Only after all MS phone projects ended as a disaster. Mostly because they couldn't even keep it compatible with itself.
+1
5. Be the 5th largest contributor to the Linux kernel...
Mostly for hypervisor stuff and other stuff related to compatibility with (
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) They open sourced the parts that were not doing well competitively. Notably, they do not open source enough to make desktop applications. Only server applications can benefit from what they did open source, and they had nothing to lose as C# had no market share.
2) IE's market share had cratered, so ignoring what other browsers were doing was no longer an option.
3) It's billed as an 'Azure Development Tool', and it's never going to be allowed to infringe upon the desktop application side. Again, MS has
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All the things that they're doing good don't excuse them for things they attempted to do to artificially screw progress of mankind for sake of their dominance.
It doesn't excuse them because they are only doing this now as a new tactic because they cannot ignore Linux and FOSS anymore. They tried their best to kill it, destroy it any which way, but they failed so they changed their tactics. They realized they cannot NOT have Linux on their Clo
Re: (Score:2)
It's true that we wouldn't have believed how much the world would change, but...
1. When Java became available under GPL, MS didn't get any real advantage in holding onto their version. And if you mean NET (do you?) it's terms are not better, and it's portability is abysmal.
2. Microsoft was never an internet company. IE was a money pit.
3. There's a word for the MS "Linux compatibility layer"..."embrace".
4. Office is their main cash cow. If they can get it more widely used, they make more money.
5. The con
Re: (Score:2)
The only place where MS did try to actually genuinely compete with OEM license was back in the days of Windows 8 tablets, when people assumed that tablets would be a thing but it wasn't clear that MS would even have a role.
That was a pretty brief time and very narrow market (devices with an integrated screen and that screen had to be no larger than 10"). Otherwise as far as I know, they still treat their vendors about the same as they always have.
Re: (Score:2)
You are an ignorant piece of shit, and there's no pain you don't deserve to experience. Those quotes are caused by Slashdot not understanding encodings which have existed for about 30 years, and which are heavily used by Apple.
Man.. What a horrible web site. If only they used existing standards. Guess their evil. Not using standards.
Excellent News (Score:4, Interesting)
Github is far too dominant in the online source code repository market. If this causes some people to leave and join other repositories or set up new competitors, that is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The indicated result is, indeed, a good thing. The cause is closer to a disaster than to a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Grow up (Score:2)
What a childish, idiotic, egocentric attitude. This is business. Github is not a nonprofit.
From the beginning, Git support of MS has been poor. I'd say this is well deserved.
Re: (Score:2)
Github is a profit.
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
Further, github has for all it's image, kept all it's stuff closed source. They chat up open source and say how great it is... Until it comes to the code they run on their servers, then they just don't say anything....
Contrast to gitlab which offers enough to let you make your own site if you prefer.
LinkedIn (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thats just fluoride in your water talking :p
Honestly though, people are concerned about Facebook and privacy, LinkedIn is many times worse.
Just use GitLab. Free and open-source, no BS. (Score:2, Interesting)
It's also not under U.S. jurisdiction, being based in Europe. These days that's something you need to consider.
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of precendent (Score:2)
If it is to screw things over, look no further than the decline of SourceForge. At one point, their position of 'go-to place for open source projects' seemed unassailable. Then they died off and github became the new hotness in *very* short order. The kicker is that sourceforge technically gave a lot more services than github ever did, so projects were willing to give up having integrated hosting, powerful download management, and many other things. Also, a lot of projects were still using svn, so they
Decentralised open standards (Score:2)
Don't use one web site to do anything, in this case Github for a code repository.
We need open standards spread across the internet and many different sites which cannot be bought and commercialised.
Decentralise, don't concentrate.
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, I'm nobody important, but I already do this with Github. It's got a few bits and bobs of open source on it from me - nothing serious. All my private repos are elsewhere (Gitlab, mainly). Git is the singularly easiest source control tool for moving repos from A to B though - some providers even have 'import' tools because it's so easy to do.
On another note, Github must be indirectly responsible for an awful lot of 'code leak' from various companies. That is, you join a new company and give them your gi
empty warning (Score:2)
How does Microsoft owning GitHub "break the open source world"? Even if Microsoft were to do something nefarious (like make unacceptable changes to the TOS), there are dozens of similar services around, or you can simply run GitLab as a hosted or co
Why so much outrage? Are you serious? (Score:2)
random thought (Score:2)
If you get "X" so low that it's no longer an appealing price to GitHub then you've "won" in the sense that you've torpedoed the deal. If you don't get "X
It's not too late. (Score:2)
This is just a comment about where you "put your eggs." If you put them all in one basket and something happens to that basket, all of your eggs can break.
Moreover, if you put some outside resource in a position where a change there can doom your enterprise, you are at great risk. This is true regardless of the resource. In the case of code hosting, there are alternatives. There's Bitbucket, Gitlab and probably others hosted in the cloud. Or you can host Gitlab or Gitea on your own H/W or VPS.
This is not li
Thank goodness Sean weighed in (Score:2)
Sean is definitely the most authoritative commentator. I'm glad he gave /. his opinion, or I wouldn't really know what to think, but now that Sean says this is probably a bad idea, I know that it is.
communicating urgent and sustained *non*-change (Score:2)
The intended imputation here is that if only we understood, we'd behave differently.
Not true.
Our behaviour can only be influenced by a loud, long, thorough, sensible, and credible disclosure about how a newly kinder/gentler Microsoft plans to o
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is github itself open-source? (Score:4, Funny)
By selling themselves to Microsoft :)
Re: Is github itself open-source? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Is github itself open-source? (Score:2)
Re:Is github itself open-source? (Score:5, Interesting)
Although they get some revenue from paid plans (which offer features like private repositories, server-side hooks, and other useful things), they've never been profitable. Like so many startups, they keep the lights on by burning investor money while they wait to be acquired.
I've worked for a company like this, and the people who got screwed the most were the employee shareholders. The VCs with their preferential shares divided up the money from the sale, and there was nothing left for the employees who actually believed in the company and put their own money into it. I'd already left by then, but it was a better place to work after the buy-out, as they could actually afford to pay something like market rates for developers. Before the buy-out, cash was always too tight, so everyone was underpaid and no-one got pay rises.
Re:Is github itself open-source? (Score:5, Interesting)
You worked for a shit startup that always intended to screw you. What happens in an honest company is that the buyout price is stated in terms of $/share. Any options you have automatically vest, and you get a lump sum (minus taxes) for your shares multiplied by the share price. You literally can't have a situation where there isn't money for the employees.
Re:Is github itself open-source? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it didn't start like that. The company was founded by ex-HP employees after HP's massive layoffs (pre-Fiorina). They pooled their savings and borrowed as much as they could to start the company, and imagined they'd be turning a profit in a couple of years. They gave employees options to allow them to buy into the vision as well. Of course, things didn't go so well, so they had to look for investors to keep the company alive.
Some of the investors were in it because they wanted to be able to resell th
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the joint I am working at.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's like Sun and Oracle in the day. If Sun actually made money with Java, they would still be in business and Oracle would not own it.
With Github, all the OSS Freaks whine and moan BUT THEY DO NOT WANT TO PAY. Someone, somewhere needs to pay to keep GitHub online. Otherwise, well... no more GitHub. It is not brain surgery.
It is better for MS to buy GitHub and keep it alive than for GitHub to suddenly die and disappear. I am pretty sure GitHub is not happy about the situation either.
If you do not want MS (o
Re:I know nobody cares but (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm one step ahead of you. I've never used GitHub in my life, much less had an account there.
Re: (Score:2)
Seconded.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'd say that your github was also untrustworthy, aren't they? I mean, you've been on github, and they just sold your hosting out from underneath you, so...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
GitLab (Score:2)
GitLab is free. You can self-host it. There are pre-packaged appliances you can install.
Not sure what Microsoft's motive was in making the purchase. No way they couldn't have known there'd be backlash. Maybe because they are such a coding-intensive company they consider coding and infrastructure a major part of their business which is understandable to the extent they don't commercialize it or threaten OSS.
Re: (Score:3)
Between gitlab and atlassian, there are at least healthy alternatives that have easy issue tracking/git commit integration and continuous integration packages for those who don't feel ilke understanding how to set it up themselves (which as you suggest isn't too hard either).
Re: (Score:2)
One, most people don't think too much on Netscape, that was one of the *least* insidious ways they attacked the market. Of course the more insidious technical examples are even older (intentionally making popular microsoft software fail to work correctly with competing DOS implementations). Business wise it has been consistent and pervasive throughout. They have recently been better for those who care about the technology and espouse open source values, but business wise they continue to do things that a
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
*slow, insincere golf clap*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know - like progs deflect all criticism of admitted yet unprosecuted crimes but expect prosecution of imaginary ones their opponent supposedly committed.