Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Microsoft swallows Github
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tony0945
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 4118
Location: Illinois, USA

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hu wrote:
That's not really possible here, even if Microsoft started actively trying to break things. Git is maintained by people who have no obligation to Github. At worst, Microsoft could make it difficult to use Github from a non-Windows platform.

As far as I know, the only part of most Github projects that is at all difficult to export is the issue tracker data. That is still exportable, although the documentation I found readily suggests you need to export issues one at a time.

That's not how they work. First they will extend the language. And they will write a GUI (that only works on 10 because of hidden interfaces). The GUI will be useful. Current git GUI's are just such a thin wrapper over the command line that you might as well not bother. MSgit will be useful especially to those not versed in git mechanics. It will "embrace and extend". Then slowly it will add features that Torvald's git doesn't have. They will subtly change meanings. Then one day your github project will no longer work correctly with old git. MSgit will be closed source. RedHat is following a similar stategy, warping Linux into RedHatOS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sao98021
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 144
Location: Michigan

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yamakuzure wrote:
You can compare apples and oranges as much as you like. It doesn't change the simple facts:
  • GitHub is not git. There is no way MS can compromise git.
  • Microsoft did a lot of bad take-overs in their history. Hell, the first MS-DOS was one, too!
    But name one, just one, that went bad after Steve Balmer left. And don't google it. From the top of your head.
    All you people can name are the ones I remember, too. And Skype, the most recent, was 7 years ago.
  • Microsoft gets access to millions of developers and projects with this acquisition.
    That is their main gain!
    With this they can advertise their own (non-free) services (such as Azure) to such a wide audience, that the acquisition of GitHub will pay off very soon, even if only 1% of the developers on GitHub book any non-free Microsoft service.
  • For this to work they have to be very careful about what they do. They know that any repo can move away in no time.
  • The more projects they scare away, the smaller their revenue will be. It is as simple as that.
  • Hell, they are themselves so deep into git services, they sound like they never had any VCS on their own!
Don't get me wrong, please. I am no fan of Microsoft, and not happy about their acquisition of GitHub!

All I say is, that all the panicking you read everywhere, is exaggerative. (I find some of it quite preposterous, to be honest...)



i was never worried about them changing git or how it works(for now, but how long do you think linus will be alive for), am only talking about github and nothing else, and i've honestly not even read a single article about it panicking or otherwise, 2 days ago(or a day) i saw a headline that simply said "microsoft buys github" except the one post the redhat guy put out talking about there will be some epic rants this week, which considering what redhat's been up to, cant say i'm all too surprised that this is his entrepreneurial stance on it.

my opinion is simply my own based on that simple line alone, i do not panic about anything ever, and i dont exaggerate anything i say, i honestly couldnt even name WHAT they have acquired even since 2015, or even 2007. it's not something i typically followed. I looked up it's wiki page of mergers and acquisitions against your better judgement and i've never onced used anything listed except simplygon as a service(and now github), and if you ask me.. it's kiiiinda on the resource hungry side compared to simplygon circa 2016, broken? went bad? ehh debatable

:edit: oh wait, something i actually have experience with and anger, they've broken visual studio their own ide with nearly every single release after 2010, if not functionality, and then made it IMPOSSIBLE to stay on vs2010, and then made it impossible to do anything correctly without always using the latest version, then guess what.. your going to need their latest OS as well, AND then guess what their import from old vs tool just breaks shit even more, and you cant undo it, your only option is to conform if you are lucky, if you are unlucky you wont be able to use the same api's anymore either, this should probably be moderately frightening to people as it is directly related to what they may/may not do with github, and if they treat it like they have handled VS throughout history, there are going to be some seeeerious, serious trials and tribulations to come, just google fuck visual studio, there are so many related to it, many of them horror stories about accidentally deleting upwards of 3 months of code, it's funny because, lots of them.. are in githubs bugtracker..... kinda funny now xD


Tony0945 wrote:
Hu wrote:
That's not really possible here, even if Microsoft started actively trying to break things. Git is maintained by people who have no obligation to Github. At worst, Microsoft could make it difficult to use Github from a non-Windows platform.

As far as I know, the only part of most Github projects that is at all difficult to export is the issue tracker data. That is still exportable, although the documentation I found readily suggests you need to export issues one at a time.

That's not how they work. First they will extend the language. And they will write a GUI (that only works on 10 because of hidden interfaces). The GUI will be useful. Current git GUI's are just such a thin wrapper over the command line that you might as well not bother. MSgit will be useful especially to those not versed in git mechanics. It will "embrace and extend". Then slowly it will add features that Torvald's git doesn't have. They will subtly change meanings. Then one day your github project will no longer work correctly with old git. MSgit will be closed source. RedHat is following a similar stategy, warping Linux into RedHatOS.


sounds like, exactly what's going to happen within a modest 3, to 5 years. give or take.

Chris Spencer said this in 2004 during the windows 2000 src leaks

Quote:
"The open source community lives in a glass box. We always show our source code and we accept help from anyone around the world to make our projects better."


i say this in 2018
now the opensource community on github will be living in a 4d box, the inner cube being a glass box, the outer cube, being made of cardboard (actually pretty happy that i finally get to use a fourth dimension object to graphically portray something EXACTLY to a tee.)

this is the reality now and nothing to do with apples and oranges, unless apples are closed source and oranges are opensource. if you deny this reality, well.. your just not living in reality.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmpogo
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 2836
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yamakuzure wrote:
And Skype, the most recent, was 7 years ago.
[


well, Microsoft froze Skype development for Linux for 6 years out of these 7. A bit of setback, no ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yamakuzure
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 2277
Location: Bardowick, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sao98021 wrote:
Yamakuzure wrote:
You can compare apples and oranges as much as you like. It doesn't change the simple facts
(...)
All I say is, that all the panicking you read everywhere, is exaggerative.


i was never worried about them changing git or how it works(for now, but how long do you think linus will be alive for), am only talking about github and nothing else, and i've honestly not even read a single article about it panicking or otherwise, 2 days ago(or a day) i saw a headline that simply said "microsoft buys github" except the one post the redhat guy put out talking about there will be some epic rants this week, which considering what redhat's been up to, cant say i'm all too surprised that this is his entrepreneurial stance on it.


Sorry, that went wrong. I did not answer directly to your post, but in general. I didn't address you directly, but all those panicky comments everywhere. The articles are just telling what's going on.

sao98021 wrote:

:edit: oh wait, something i actually have experience with and anger, they've broken visual studio their own ide with nearly every single release after 2010, if not functionality, and then made it IMPOSSIBLE to stay on vs2010, and then made it impossible to do anything correctly without always using the latest version, then guess what.. your going to need their latest OS as well, (...)


I had to break here. Sorry, but IMHO you are wrong.
I am currently on Windows 10 Pro with Visual Studio 2017 and can build everything down to VS 2008 projects without any limitations other than Windows XP being the oldest OS supported.

What's true, however, is that VS2012, VS2013 and VS2015 got worse and worse. (okay, 2015 is slightly better than 2013, but only just.)
It wasn't, I have no problem to admit that, until VS2017 that I didn't sorely miss VS2010. The best until now.

If you are interested in how this works, there is a quite usable blog entry on msdn about that matter. They talk about VS2015, but it works also for VS2017.

Tony0945 wrote:
Hu wrote:
That's not really possible here, even if Microsoft started actively trying to break things. Git is maintained by people who have no obligation to Github. At worst, Microsoft could make it difficult to use Github from a non-Windows platform.

As far as I know, the only part of most Github projects that is at all difficult to export is the issue tracker data. That is still exportable, although the documentation I found readily suggests you need to export issues one at a time.

That's not how they work. First they will extend the language. And they will write a GUI (that only works on 10 because of hidden interfaces). The GUI will be useful. Current git GUI's are just such a thin wrapper over the command line that you might as well not bother. MSgit will be useful especially to those not versed in git mechanics. It will "embrace and extend". Then slowly it will add features that Torvald's git doesn't have. They will subtly change meanings. Then one day your github project will no longer work correctly with old git. MSgit will be closed source. RedHat is following a similar stategy, warping Linux into RedHatOS.


What? How can they "extend the language"? Which language? Sorry but that's exactly that kind of ridiculous conspiracy theories I was talking about.

sao98021 wrote:
Chris Spencer said this in 2004 during the windows 2000 src leaks

Quote:
"The open source community lives in a glass box. We always show our source code and we accept help from anyone around the world to make our projects better."


i say this in 2018
now the opensource community on github will be living in a 4d box, the inner cube being a glass box, the outer cube, being made of cardboard (actually pretty happy that i finally get to use a fourth dimension object to graphically portray something EXACTLY to a tee.)

this is the reality now and nothing to do with apples and oranges, unless apples are closed source and oranges are opensource. if you deny this reality, well.. your just not living in reality.
_________________
Great quote. That's exactly what open source is about. I do not know what you mean by an outer cube made of cardboard, though.

However, the apples and oranges are : "Microsoft acquiring GitHub" (The "Apple") and "Microsoft compromising git" (The "Orange").
The first is a fact, although not finally done, yet.
The latter is simply impossible.
_________________
Important German:
  1. "Aha" - German reaction to pretend that you are really interested while giving no f*ck.
  2. "Tja" - German reaction to the apocalypse, nuclear war, an alien invasion or no bread in the house.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2567

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yamakuzure wrote:
sao98021 wrote:
Yamakuzure wrote:
You can compare apples and oranges as much as you like. It doesn't change the simple facts
(...)
All I say is, that all the panicking you read everywhere, is exaggerative.


i was never worried about them changing git or how it works(for now, but how long do you think linus will be alive for), am only talking about github and nothing else, and i've honestly not even read a single article about it panicking or otherwise, 2 days ago(or a day) i saw a headline that simply said "microsoft buys github" except the one post the redhat guy put out talking about there will be some epic rants this week, which considering what redhat's been up to, cant say i'm all too surprised that this is his entrepreneurial stance on it.


Sorry, that went wrong. I did not answer directly to your post, but in general. I didn't address you directly, but all those panicky comments everywhere. The articles are just telling what's going on.

sao98021 wrote:

:edit: oh wait, something i actually have experience with and anger, they've broken visual studio their own ide with nearly every single release after 2010, if not functionality, and then made it IMPOSSIBLE to stay on vs2010, and then made it impossible to do anything correctly without always using the latest version, then guess what.. your going to need their latest OS as well, (...)


I had to break here. Sorry, but IMHO you are wrong.
I am currently on Windows 10 Pro with Visual Studio 2017 and can build everything down to VS 2008 projects without any limitations other than Windows XP being the oldest OS supported.


Backward compatibility is different from what sao98021 is talking about. He(?) is saying it's impossible to use an older visual studio on a system which gets updates, and that using a newer visual studio requires the latest OS. This is entirely believable based on my Microsoft experience.

Quote:

What's true, however, is that VS2012, VS2013 and VS2015 got worse and worse. (okay, 2015 is slightly better than 2013, but only just.)
It wasn't, I have no problem to admit that, until VS2017 that I didn't sorely miss VS2010. The best until now.

If you are interested in how this works, there is a quite usable blog entry on msdn about that matter. They talk about VS2015, but it works also for VS2017.

Tony0945 wrote:
Hu wrote:
That's not really possible here, even if Microsoft started actively trying to break things. Git is maintained by people who have no obligation to Github. At worst, Microsoft could make it difficult to use Github from a non-Windows platform.

As far as I know, the only part of most Github projects that is at all difficult to export is the issue tracker data. That is still exportable, although the documentation I found readily suggests you need to export issues one at a time.

That's not how they work. First they will extend the language. And they will write a GUI (that only works on 10 because of hidden interfaces). The GUI will be useful. Current git GUI's are just such a thin wrapper over the command line that you might as well not bother. MSgit will be useful especially to those not versed in git mechanics. It will "embrace and extend". Then slowly it will add features that Torvald's git doesn't have. They will subtly change meanings. Then one day your github project will no longer work correctly with old git. MSgit will be closed source. RedHat is following a similar stategy, warping Linux into RedHatOS.


What? How can they "extend the language"? Which language? Sorry but that's exactly that kind of ridiculous conspiracy theories I was talking about.


First, they can make their own closed-source version of git which follows the external API. Second, they can add features to that MSGit and then alter github's API to use those features. Eventually the additions to MSGit become incompatible with the standard git, and the standard git either becomes obsolete or they write additions. The additions increase in frequency and scope, and soon a team of volunteers can no longer keep up.

I remember when Microsoft tried to do this with the ftp protocol by switching something. I think it was endian-ness of the data being transferred. They pushed on it for almost a year I think before the rest of the world successfully pushed back.

Quote:

sao98021 wrote:
Chris Spencer said this in 2004 during the windows 2000 src leaks

Quote:
"The open source community lives in a glass box. We always show our source code and we accept help from anyone around the world to make our projects better."


i say this in 2018
now the opensource community on github will be living in a 4d box, the inner cube being a glass box, the outer cube, being made of cardboard (actually pretty happy that i finally get to use a fourth dimension object to graphically portray something EXACTLY to a tee.)

this is the reality now and nothing to do with apples and oranges, unless apples are closed source and oranges are opensource. if you deny this reality, well.. your just not living in reality.
_________________
Great quote. That's exactly what open source is about. I do not know what you mean by an outer cube made of cardboard, though.

However, the apples and oranges are : "Microsoft acquiring GitHub" (The "Apple") and "Microsoft compromising git" (The "Orange").
The first is a fact, although not finally done, yet.
The latter is simply impossible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sao98021
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 144
Location: Michigan

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

Backward compatibility is different from what sao98021 is talking about. He(?) is saying it's impossible to use an older visual studio on a system which gets updates, and that using a newer visual studio requires the latest OS. This is entirely believable based on my Microsoft experience.


this is what i meant mostly, but also there are cases of peoples including my self that things still being broken after finally being forced to switch to the new ones, maybe they didnt nail backwards compatibility on their first go, maybe they finally worked the kinks out, or maybe it's just the community editions.



sao98021 wrote:
Chris Spencer said this in 2004 during the windows 2000 src leaks

Quote:
"The open source community lives in a glass box. We always show our source code and we accept help from anyone around the world to make our projects better."


i say this in 2018
now the opensource community on github will be living in a 4d box, the inner cube being a glass box, the outer cube, being made of cardboard (actually pretty happy that i finally get to use a fourth dimension object to graphically portray something EXACTLY to a tee.)

this is the reality now and nothing to do with apples and oranges, unless apples are closed source and oranges are opensource. if you deny this reality, well.. your just not living in reality.
_________________



Quote:
Great quote. That's exactly what open source is about. I do not know what you mean by an outer cube made of cardboard, though.

However, the apples and oranges are : "Microsoft acquiring GitHub" (The "Apple") and "Microsoft compromising git" (The "Orange").
The first is a fact, although not finally done, yet.
The latter is simply impossible.



i can entirely see how it's frustrating to see people freaking out over what it means for git(next to nothing at the moment), i'm pretty sure the next torvalds press release/openforum/mailing list (if it hasn't happened yet)will be even better than the F U NVIDIA ordeal that happened, or just nothing at all.

this is a 4d cube in geometry, commonly called a tesseract
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/tesseract.jpg

to me it was a good representation of whats to become/has become of github.org

that inner cube = github (all code hosted on it = opensource so its glass)
outer cube = microsoft(monolithic closed source enterprise so its not glass its cardboard or anything else non-transparent)

and it doesnt even matter if they change anything about github one bit, they can still keep it entirely as it is now, but they will still be owned by that bank rolling non-transparent outer cube and that wont change without some huge changes to the company.

it's entirely political to me, like i'm richard stallman or something, that said i'm not ruling anything about, it would appear to seem they have been conforming to or at the least, being forced into a more open world in order to stay competitive, dunno.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2567

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Github hosts closed-source software repositories too. You just have to pay for your account if you have closed source.

Not sure if that's relevant to what you intend here.

My "paranoia" is based on some odd 30 years of experience watching Microsoft take over companies with outstanding products and then watching those products either turn to crap or vanish completely, or both. It's a slow process, so people who are not paying attention don't notice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sao98021
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 144
Location: Michigan

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1clue wrote:
Github hosts closed-source software repositories too. You just have to pay for your account if you have closed source.

Not sure if that's relevant to what you intend here.


it does a little, because while at the time of them being "The largest open source community in the world" and then at the same time sharing it with private objects as well all along, wouldn't be difficult how one could see that it would be a bit contradiction to all of a sudden be up in arms about it now after this, though i suppose it's not necessarily the same situation, maybe some didnt like it and now with microsoft ownership it may be the final nail in the coffin for modest few, clearly it's going to boil down to the individuals, and teams who put their work there, after all not everyone is an extremist about it anymore in this day and age.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 18558

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yamakuzure wrote:
There is no way MS can compromise git.
Creating an API compatible alternative with extensions would not compromise git.
_________________
Your lips move, but I can't hear what you're saying.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2567

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Yamakuzure wrote:
There is no way MS can compromise git.
Creating an API compatible alternative with extensions would not compromise git.


Correct. However, making unofficial extensions of that api which are not disclosed to the public would compromise git for those people who use the FOSS git with a modified github.

For example, Microsoft Internet Explorer was supposed to be "just a web browser." When the US government tried to force Microsoft to make it easier to put in any other browser, or to not have it installed on a base system, they claimed that it was tied directly into the operating system, and that other browsers could not do everything IE did, and that those functions were critical to the OS.

Using IE as an example, I'm giving a real-world example of what I'm talking about. IE started out as just a browser, and then silently became something else that MS claimed was irreplaceable and a vital part of the operating system. The extra features were not public information nor part of any public protocol.

In exactly the same way, a private implementation of git could implement more than the standard git does, and github could start to rely on that functionality more and more over time. The FOSS git begins to be difficult, and then if Microsoft's historical strategy works, people migrate to Microsoft Git as an easy fix. Or, as many are suggesting here, the user base could escape to another site or self-host.

Embrace, extend, replace.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 18558

PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1clue wrote:
pjp wrote:
Yamakuzure wrote:
There is no way MS can compromise git.
Creating an API compatible alternative with extensions would not compromise git.


Correct. However, making unofficial extensions of that api which are not disclosed to the public would compromise git for those people who use the FOSS git with a modified github.
The "however" was my point. Although I don't agree that it must "compromise" FOSS git / modified github. It is very possible that MS could support both. I think there is a greater chance of that today than 10 years ago. They'll want to add features that make it compelling to use MSgit. That's why I pointed out mail / Exchange.
_________________
Your lips move, but I can't hear what you're saying.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2567

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
1clue wrote:
pjp wrote:
Yamakuzure wrote:
There is no way MS can compromise git.
Creating an API compatible alternative with extensions would not compromise git.


Correct. However, making unofficial extensions of that api which are not disclosed to the public would compromise git for those people who use the FOSS git with a modified github.
The "however" was my point. Although I don't agree that it must "compromise" FOSS git / modified github. It is very possible that MS could support both. I think there is a greater chance of that today than 10 years ago. They'll want to add features that make it compelling to use MSgit. That's why I pointed out mail / Exchange.


I misunderstood your point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ct85711
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 1783

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The part you can not forget, is that there is other ways that M$ can effectively kill off github, and you can't say they are hurting open source.

One few parts that we know for certain/believed true, github is/has been losing money and buisness/paid accounts is not making enough. Given that, MS is going need to have github make more money some way. A lot of news reports been saying MS is going to open github to a larger buisness market (I am not sure how, but that is my view). Second, they start charging the buisness/paid accounts even more, to start making up some of the loss. Do note, the key word "some", as if they raise the costs too high, it could very well scare even more away and loose their money. The third option, would be push more people over to paid accounts.

Now, the first option, I don't consider is going to be much of an factor. As quite frankly, github been a big name for a while; so to have MS opening github to a larger market does not seem likely. The second option, is a balancing game, of how much they can raise it without loosing too many people. The third option is going to be the main thing, and should be what you should worry about...

Now, I would hazard a bet, that majority of the accounts on github are free accounts.

Now, free accounts can have unlimited public repos. I couldn't tell for certain on if the free account gives you 1 free private repo or not; either way it doesn't matter much. As to get more, you have to get a developer(paid account) to get unlimited private repos. The last main difference, is that you are limited of the number of collaborators you can invite in a single day on a free account. There isn't anything I've seen, saying there being a limit of total collaborators on a project.

So, lets look at what MS could do on this... The unlimited public repos, you can easily see how that can be changed... Instead of unlimited public accounts, what effect will it have if they change it to say 100 initially... Overall, that would be largely ignored for a majority (I'd bet there is are only a few accounts with more than 100 public repos). However, this would be a easy stepping stone to further restricting it down even farther without getting much attention right away. By the time they gradually reduce the number of free public repos to say 10, general public will largely ignore it. The private repos, not much to say; as you needed a paid account either way for multiple private repos...
The collaborators part could be change and have a huge effect. Think about, the effect it would have if repos from free accounts have a limit of the number of collaborators total. This, I would think would greatly numerous repos alone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yamakuzure
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 2277
Location: Bardowick, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great post! I just would like to pick out one to share an idea about how this could work:
ct85711 wrote:
Now, the first option, I don't consider is going to be much of an factor. As quite frankly, github been a big name for a while; so to have MS opening github to a larger market does not seem likely
After acquiring LinkedIn, they started integrating that into MSDN subscriptions. So if you have an MSDN subscription, you'll find links to "professional video training on LinkedIn" on your dash board.

With GitHub they could add support for Azure to the GitHub API and vice versa. You'd need a (paid) Azure account to get the benefits, but that would certainly be interesting for a lot of their business customers. Even more if they added support for the Microsoft Store API as well. With that you could develop, test and publish without leaving Visual Studio, and there is no reason for any change to git at all. (Doesn't mean enthusiastic Microsoft XOs could find some...)
_________________
Important German:
  1. "Aha" - German reaction to pretend that you are really interested while giving no f*ck.
  2. "Tja" - German reaction to the apocalypse, nuclear war, an alien invasion or no bread in the house.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ct85711
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 1783

PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
With GitHub they could add support for Azure to the GitHub API and vice versa.


Just doing a quick search, there has already been support for github on Azure for a couple years easily.

Here is a blog from MS on how to integrate the 2, from 2015...
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/microsoftimagine/2015/09/01/using-continuous-integration-with-azure-github/

As far as the Visual Studio support for git, that has been terrible support since they added it. Now, I don't know on the new 2019 version, on if they finally started supporting git fully. Otherwise, even MS used to say, you are better off using a regular git client instead of using the integrated one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

asturm wrote:
Not really valid comparisons there. All they have is 'soft lock-in' due to all the people already being on the platform. Which has been proprietary before being swallowed by MS. git being git, repos are pushed to a different server faster than they spell out 'Change of terms of service'.

I did try to parse this for content, but I could not find any.

The comparisons are totally valid, nonetheless.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
asturm
Developer
Developer


Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 7963
Location: Austria

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you say so.
_________________
backend.cpp:92:2: warning: #warning TODO - this error message is about as useful as a cooling unit in the arctic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bobbymcgee
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Apr 2018
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I predict the TOS is the only thing that will change. MS is in the data mining industry and github's TOS will not work for Satya. :)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krinn
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7447

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's a huge problem with that, MS can easy restrict github access to an account, a step that would really put opensource is trouble.
For now you can freely browse any github project, making a perfect source to respect "provide source code" of GPL software, you disturbed a GPL product and point user to github url to get source of the software to comply with the GPL requirement.

But it's only valid if the url is free to access, by just making any github url restrict to a login (even if they offer free login) will break this.
You should know that a (even free of charge) login system is a no-go: a login is a lot of restrictions, you need most of the time a valid email, disclose your personal information and further restrictions put by the company (stuff like respecting USA embargo on some country per example)...

Which mean even if MS change to "login for free to grab any source", this would mean github is no more an url you could use to respect your GPL clause to provide source ; a major fiasco for GPL distributors.


MS doesn't need a lot of trick to put open source community in trouble, only add a login prior accessing source and open source community will be hurt badly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
szatox
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Posts: 1944

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Which mean even if MS change to "login for free to grab any source", this would mean github is no more an url you could use to respect your GPL clause to provide source ; a major fiasco for GPL distributors.
Unless you provide an account with readonly access to your repo. Assuming this account wouldn't be banned for whatever reason.
Basically: you're a linux admin, just set up your own repo.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
1clue
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2567

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

krinn wrote:
There's a huge problem with that, MS can easy restrict github access to an account, a step that would really put opensource is trouble.
For now you can freely browse any github project, making a perfect source to respect "provide source code" of GPL software, you disturbed a GPL product and point user to github url to get source of the software to comply with the GPL requirement.

But it's only valid if the url is free to access, by just making any github url restrict to a login (even if they offer free login) will break this.
You should know that a (even free of charge) login system is a no-go: a login is a lot of restrictions, you need most of the time a valid email, disclose your personal information and further restrictions put by the company (stuff like respecting USA embargo on some country per example)...

Which mean even if MS change to "login for free to grab any source", this would mean github is no more an url you could use to respect your GPL clause to provide source ; a major fiasco for GPL distributors.


MS doesn't need a lot of trick to put open source community in trouble, only add a login prior accessing source and open source community will be hurt badly.


I respectfully disagree here, on several points.


  1. In order to fulfill the GPL and many other FOSS licenses you need to provide code access. Many FOSS projects are hosted on github, and that means they must legally be available for anyone to download, with or without an account.
  2. By causing github, which currently hosts thousands of FOSS repositories, to require a login, github would break the FOSS license restrictions for all of those repositories.
  3. End of open source: No way. Git is not a server even though there is server software available to make git satisfy a client-server paradigm. If you were synced up though, and your git server blows up and everything is lost, you still have everything on your local copy.
  4. Much more than that, there is no requirement to agree on any authoritative repository. There are as many remotes as there are developers, and people can pull from them any way they desire, within the restraints of git's revision history structure.
  5. What that means is that if github becomes too restrictive, everyone can simply move to another site, or self-host.


The only things lost would be the extra services which use github as a source. Waffle.io, circleci, github-flavored markdown automatically making markup for your README.md files, and so many more they can't be listed.

Those services, assuming they're not provided by github, could possibly be used by some other git server, but they may need modification. I don't know on that. I personally, if I hosted such a service, would do my best to make it agnostic of git server site, and try to allow the same services for a checked-out copy on some guy's laptop if I could. That would make the service most like what git truly is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ant P.
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 6715

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hu wrote:
At worst, Microsoft could make it difficult to use Github from a non-Windows platform.

Github already does that. You can't connect to it if your ssh client is built with USE="-openssl", because they use a non-standard server that only implements legacy ciphers. GitLab works fine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
P.Kosunen
Guru
Guru


Joined: 21 Nov 2005
Posts: 309
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1clue wrote:


  1. In order to fulfill the GPL and many other FOSS licenses you need to provide code access. Many FOSS projects are hosted on github, and that means they must legally be available for anyone to download, with or without an account.
  2. By causing github, which currently hosts thousands of FOSS repositories, to require a login, github would break the FOSS license restrictions for all of those repositories.

GPL does not mean Github has to be open to everyone, anyone using GPL code must make it available some other way when asked if Github is not accessible to everyone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
asturm
Developer
Developer


Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 7963
Location: Austria

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, but it simply means GitHub would become useless and everyone moved somewhere else...
_________________
backend.cpp:92:2: warning: #warning TODO - this error message is about as useful as a cooling unit in the arctic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yamakuzure
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 2277
Location: Bardowick, Germany

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

asturm wrote:
Yes, but it simply means GitHub would become useless and everyone moved somewhere else...
Well, Microsoft has hundreds of FOSS repos on GitHub as well. (But generally MIT license, not GPL)

However, I do not think that they would have any difficulties re-licensing their stuff if needed.

Well, we'll see what happens. Microsoft either screws GitHub, and force most of their users to move their projects to the more than enough alternatives, or they really have changed as much as they say they have.

No need to panic (, yet), but if they screw up, the world will continue spinning.
_________________
Important German:
  1. "Aha" - German reaction to pretend that you are really interested while giving no f*ck.
  2. "Tja" - German reaction to the apocalypse, nuclear war, an alien invasion or no bread in the house.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum