GitHub Will Prioritize Migrating To Azure Over Feature Development (thenewstack.io) 23
An anonymous reader shares a report: After acquiring GitHub in 2018, Microsoft mostly let the developer platform run autonomously. But in recent months, that's changed. With GitHub CEO Thomas Dohmke leaving the company this August, and GitHub being folded more deeply into Microsoft's organizational structure, GitHub lost that independence. Now, according to internal GitHub documents The New Stack has seen, the next step of this deeper integration into the Microsoft structure is moving all of GitHub's infrastructure to Azure, even at the cost of delaying work on new features.
[...] While GitHub had previously started work on migrating parts of its service to Azure, our understanding is that these migrations have been halting and sometimes failed. There are some projects, like its data residency initiative (internally referred to as Project Proxima) that will allow GitHub's enterprise users to store all of their code in Europe, that already solely use Azure's local cloud regions.
[...] While GitHub had previously started work on migrating parts of its service to Azure, our understanding is that these migrations have been halting and sometimes failed. There are some projects, like its data residency initiative (internally referred to as Project Proxima) that will allow GitHub's enterprise users to store all of their code in Europe, that already solely use Azure's local cloud regions.
Re:GitHub - Azure (Score:3)
Well, if it ain't broken, don't fix it. Microsoft might have broken it some since the acquisition but I'd expect more in the move to Azure.
From the article:
GitHub has recently seen more outages
I would expect more during and maybe even after the move.
Anyway, we don't rely on github for our own stuff. It might be a bad idea to put your industrial secrets on a publicly hosted cloud IMHO. We run our own instance of gitlab in house but you could get by with more light weight solutions.
Let's hope the move goes smoothly for those relying on github! I
Re: (Score:2)
Might also get hacked with the rest of Azure now. MS cannot get Azure security right.
So it gets hacked at well? (Score:2)
I mean MS cannot get Azure authentication and authorization right. They have demonstrated that now multiple times.
Re: (Score:2)
It will be different this time I'm sure...well, maybe the time after that...or at some point in the near to far future.
good news, bad news (Score:2)
Good news: no new misfeatures for a while
Bad news: migrating to Azure will probably break everything occasionally.
Familiar... (Score:2)
It was widely rumored that in 1998 Microsoft tried to force Hotmail to use Microsoft infrastructure and met with predictably miserable results. Hotmail was more about trying to show off their infrastructure products that as an offering in and of itself.
Microsoft might be a bit more conflicted on github, but clearly that sentiment persists.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this was my first thought too.
I remember this. The end result of this was that Windows (moreso IIS) couldn't handle the traffic and Microsoft quietly moved back to the FreeBSD servers, but with a "faked" IIS identification. I recall some people validating that they were running BSD by exploiting an Apache flaw where you could download the BSD commands. Rumor has it that HotMail ran on those FreeBSD systems for 20 years under Microsoft.
The good thing I see with this is Linux will run on Azure, so they
Re: (Score:2)
I think any dramatic change from how you currently run things to a different way is full of risk. Just because it's Linux doesn't really do much in the face of who knows how much hard coded this or that they accumulated in their infrastructure management.
People's infrastructure management tends to be ugly and locked in to how they do it in various ways.
Azure may be utterly capable, but any difference is a huge headache, particularly the longer the 'old ways' went on and how many people along the way left t
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, in the case of HotMail, it brought their failure to the forefront.
My Codeberg account is all setup and ready to use (Score:2)
I've been hosting my open-source projects on Github for years.
Why you ask? After all, isn't every open-source and free software advocate's duty to stay clear away from Microsoft?
Here's my reason: I only use the git part of Github. I don't use any of Microsoft's proprietary crap on top of it.
Therefore, Microsoft has no vendor lock-in on me: my projects are one git-push away from being hosted elsewhere. I waste their resources by making them host my massive files for free and they have absolutely nothing to s
Re: (Score:2)
+1 for Codeberg. Codeberg is good, and Forgejo (the FOSS code behind Codeberg) is an absolute pleasure to self host, for anyone comfortable with self hosting.
For those considering alternatives, be aware that Gitlab is very "Push AI at you" at the moment. It was a high quality product, and if AI is your thing it's probably fine, but even the self hosted community edition version creates undeletable "AI users" despite supposedly not using it - which makes me suspicious they're going to go all-in on AI enshitt
Re: (Score:2)
May still get hacked when MS has the next Azure security disaster ...
Re: (Score:2)
Similar with me. The only real proprietary thing I use is signed commits. If GHE gets too bad, I can move to GOGS, Gitea, GitLab, or similar.
However, GitHub does the job, and does it well, with solid support for YubiKey and other authentication, so I stick with it.
Next up: Mandatory M$ account! (Score:3)
Even under threat of EU, M$ did not properly offer Consumer ESU for win10, instead they secretly patched out the ability to use a local-account and now force EVERYONE into an M$ account. (And until yesterday, win10 would display that activating ESU is not ready yet in the region.)
The same will happen to GitHub, like you are forced into that forsaken account for Minecraft, GitHub will transition all accounts into M$ accountsâ¦
M$ has been trying hard to appear cool lately, but the ugly truth of M$ of the 90s is still there no matter how nice the wallpapers and how cool GitHub acquisitions may seem.
Re: (Score:2)
I think MS needs another huge EU fine applied to it. The MS account requirement is simply illegal under the GDPR, because they can collect personal data and there is no actual technical need for that account. And this means that legally, they have to provide the same service and product _without_ that account.
So far, they could always argue that it was still possible to go without an account, but the more this becomes "expert only" the worse that fake argument gets.
In other news, companies have priorities (Score:2)
Let the Enshittification commence (Score:1)
Microsoft GitHub Azure .. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They have altered the deal. You can supply the rest of the quote for yourself.
The "ban all mergers" theory (Score:2)
Is holding true. Has allowing MS to acquire GitHub improved anything about it? The more I look at any mergers over the past two decades have anything of them been out and out wins? At best it's status quo, the merger didn't ruin a service.
The best example I can think of recently is Microsoft acquiring Blizzard but that's purely an improvement over the previous and imo disastrous acquisition by Activision which had all the values of business ruining the culture of what made something great in the first plac
MS-Enshittification ongoing (Score:2)
sadly, was to be expected from a company which forces hundreds of millions of users to throw away and replace perfectly functional hardware.
That company is a malign cancer.
It probably makes financial sense (Score:2)