I simply have little trust in MS. They did improve in some areas, but not enough to gain overall trust. They are still not on the same page with many FOSS efforts.Company which actively pushes lock-in and patent aggression is not a good steward for FOSS projects.

Looking at Windows 10, with stuff like telemetry that&#x27;s impossible to disable completely and hidden behind every dark pattern imaginable, or ads in Start menu?Microsoft of today is more Microsoft than ever.

True, they went from Scroogled to mandatory telemetry, while focusing on renting out servers at ridiculous markups. Don&#x27;t forget the new focus on the Windows Store either.Meanwhile, all their non-developer-focused products are still Windows-only and closed-source.

They really haven&#x27;t. Maybe like a 150 degree turn at best.

As i know it started under Balmer, but he have to left because the failed phone OS.

Honest question: do the still threaten Linux-related companies with suing for violations of unspecified Microsoft patents?

MS has had an 180 degree turn in policy since Balmer left.Lately they released amazing open-source projects with VSCode being the most prominent one.

LinkedIn is kinda hard to make worse though tbh

Microsoft screwed up Skype by trying to “make it more Microsoft” whereas LinkedIn is being left to operate as before (tough MSFT is using the data for something). My guess is that GitHub will continue as before with the main change being that MSDN subscribers will likely get private GitHub repos as part of their package.Now MSFT just needs something along the lines of Jira to replace the dog’s breakfast that is VSTS Agile project management tooling. I don’t suppose the folks in Redmond are looking to acquire Atlassian next...?

Although I completely agree with you, pointing at LinkedIn as a success story is kind of weird.Microsoft&#x27;s new future is to be a cross-platform vendor for developers. I see absolutely zero incompatibility between Github and Microsoft and a need to shut it down. I think the Satya&#x27;s Microsoft is smart enough not to ruin it.

Or you can move immediately like many others. What would you gain by staying until it&#x27;s too late?

I am gonna wait and see. I know they messed up Skype really bad, but LinkedIN for example they havent touched and destroyed.
I will wait and see..

It&#x27;s good that there is such an alternative as GitLab, because there is a slight but still not unsignificant risk that MS will not do the right thing. I think they will though since they are power users of their own product. I&#x27;m hoping they know this space.

Some did, but this will be another major incentive.

I think the majority of the Github users started using the platform in the time since that, and don&#x27;t even know much about Github&#x27;s history.

I thought many people did after the infamous incident at Github.

I guess it&#x27;s time to move to Gitlab.

What different purposes? They&#x27;re both text editors &#x2F; lightweight IDEs focusing on plugin extensibility built on top of Electron. They&#x27;re literally the same thing.

I use neither, and I can see that the two take fairly different approaches, but why would you say they&#x27;re build for different purposes. I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s clear why a single org (though very far apart) has two approaches for a code text editor.

Atom has a whole team under Github. If they&#x27;re both run by Microsoft, that seems like a clear cost-cutting measure; why develop two vastly similar electron-based code editors when you could just move that team + all of the interesting tech into VSCode?

Atom and VS Code are both built on Electron. No need to kill Atom as it and VS Code are built for different purposes.

Probably less redundant work and overall a better editor&#x2F;IDE?

I wonder if they will merge VSTS or shutdown VSTS, or maybe just add CI and CD from VSTS to github

I used to be a big fan of Atom in the beginning, but there’s nothing Atom does that VS Code does not do better. I wouldn’t see a purpose in merging the two, but I could see them killing Atom.

I agree on the VSTS front, but a lot of people use Atom and I can see many of them being put off by being forced onto VS Code.Lately, based on comments made while promoting .NET Core, it sounds like Microsoft don&#x27;t want to consolidate tooling, so it wouldn&#x27;t surprise me to see Atom and VS Code co-exist as entirely separate entities&#x2F;teams.

I don&#x27;t understand why a solo dev needs to host his private repos somewhere.  You can just keep it on your machine, and have it backed up with the rest of your data.  And given git is distributed, you should be able to work with teams w&#x2F;o requiring Github.

But what if they increase the price or add more plans...

&gt; Considering that most of their competitors give small teams free private repos, their price should be half of that.Why would you lower your price if people are still paying for it and you are the market leader? Also at $7 per month it is among the cheapest tools for a professional developer.

&gt; I&#x27;m also optimistic they&#x27;ll revamp GitHub&#x27;s pricing structure.Well, it&#x27;s Microsoft, so more complex tiering and tie in to MSDN should be on the road map.&gt; Their current price of $7 a month is absolutely absurd for individual developers.How so?&gt; 
 I can get a pretty decent VPS for $2 a month cheaper.Perhaps, so what? That&#x27;s an unrelated service.&gt; Considering that most of their competitors give small teams free private repos, their price should be half of that.Their competitors do that to build a user base and mind share in the face of GitHub’s huge advantage in network effects.

I&#x27;m also optimistic they&#x27;ll revamp GitHub&#x27;s pricing structure.  Their current price of $7 a month is absolutely absurd for individual developers.  I can get a pretty decent VPS for $2 a month cheaper.  Considering that most of their competitors give small teams free private repos, their price should be half of that.  I understand that they have a lot of open source projects to subsidize and all, but I highly doubt a lot of individual developers are biting at that price.

VSTS does a lot of things that GitHub does not. VSTS takes the workflow roles of Jenkins, GitHub, Jira, and has a few additional features that I don&#x27;t know what open-source equivilant exists for (staged production, push to cloud - maybe done as Jenkins plugins?). It&#x27;s highly unlikely VSTS will be shut down, especially in favor of a project which does very few things that VSTS does.

If they shut down vsts they would have to make github have vsts’ level of issue management, ci&#x2F;cd, test management, ...I think most people who use github would NOT want that.

Tbh, I like this move. I hope they will merge Atom with VS Code and shutdown VSTS in favor for GitHub.

Not surprising. Microsoft has made a big deal of partnering with GitHub, showing off how well their Azure-based CI&#x2F;CD products and services integrate with code hosted at GitHub. Not to mention that .NET Core and many companion libraries are hosted at GitHub, not on VSTS.

I don&#x27;t think the big loss here is GitHub-the-software, but this short sweet period in time where everyone, from Microsoft to Apple, had their source code on the same platform. I doubt that e.g. Swift would have moved to GitHub if it had already been owned by Microsoft.

We still have Gitlab if MSFT decides to do anything malicious.

You mean like the current extensions in the .github folder (pull request template, etc)?

I think they&#x27;re on step 2 now.They already embraced it by adding 1k repos. They&#x27;re now going to extend it.We&#x27;ll soon have an msgit, which is git with extensions that only github will support.

The fact that you can’t search within a branch too...

They don’t index forks. Cloning a fork just to search through it locally is always fun. Very annoying when a fork becomes the de facto project because it’s the one being maintained.

Their search is really frustrating, I agree. I feel like they only index a small percentage of files, so results are always bad.

Github won&#x27;t let you do a code search in a forked repository. Clone &amp; grep is literally the only option!

That would be really great. 
To improve looking through new repos at least a litte bit I like the browser plugin [Octotree](<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;buunguyen&#x2F;octotree" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;buunguyen&#x2F;octotree</a>), it adds a tree view of the code and eases jumping between files.

Maybe avoiding the costs associated with keeping the indexes available for every fork? I believe they use elastic search so maybe someone with more experience with that can comment.

Um, have you actually tried doing anything about this? <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;help.github.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;searching-in-forks&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;help.github.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;searching-in-forks&#x2F;</a>

It is shockingly bad. The fact that you can&#x27;t code search in a fork blows my mind. How have they not fixed this basic, important feature after so many years? What could possibly make it more difficult than a few person-months of effort?

Sourcegraph CEO here. Glad you like Sourcegraph! Regardless of what happens with GitHub and Microsoft, we agree that developers need great code search.

Sourcegraph is great, but I had to disable the browser plugin because it opens a new tab on every github search. So annoying.

SourceGraph tries to fix it, and the experience of searching, jump-to-definition and generally getting to grips with a codebase is way better there IMO. They also have browser plugins with integration to GitHub. I recommend you to check it out.

Bing is actually quite good. Not as good as Google, but much better than Github.

Or whoever implemented the start menu search.

So we&#x27;re asking the creators of Bing to fix it?

Part of the reason GitHub search is so bad is to mitigate people uploading their AWS keys and passwords.

Yea, Microsoft should acquire sourcegraph too.

That doesn&#x27;t make sense. Ruin the feature to potentially help someone who made a mistake with security? Why wouldnt they just run the search to find keys themselves and remove them from search results.

I think they purposely weakened the search because people were using it to find secret keys.

Microsoft should be able to leverage Bing to do good deep searches across all code. This would be a big win for everyone (and Bing!)

As one of my pet projects, I&#x27;m trying to resurrect Google&#x27;s Code Search (a fast search indexer that supports regular expressions).It&#x27;s in alpha stage so far and lots of useful features (like multi-line search) are missing but you can already try it out for Crates.io and Hackage: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;codesearch.aelve.com" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;codesearch.aelve.com</a>. Indexing all of npmjs is coming soon.

Huh.... GitHub only searches head for me. This is confusing as I&#x27;ve often wanted to search other branches and can&#x27;t find a way to...

I cannot agree more with this.It boggles my mind why GitHub&#x27;s search finds results across various commits, giving patchy results. It would be far better and likely easier for GitHub to just search HEAD. This frustrates me about GitHub every day.

Exactly. I can’t search my own tweets on Twitter. Facebook doesn’t know how to rank people when I do people search there. Search is terrible across the internet except Google.

Search seems to be surprisingly bad at a lot of companies. I don&#x27;t know about github but reddits search is so bad it cannot even find something when you type it character for character.I&#x27;m super curious to what all these companies are using for search because they are so atrocious that tend to not even work in a basic substring search solution.

Yes they could, since they already have reasonable code search for VSTS [1].[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.microsoft.com&#x2F;en-us&#x2F;vsts&#x2F;project&#x2F;search&#x2F;code-search?view=vsts" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.microsoft.com&#x2F;en-us&#x2F;vsts&#x2F;project&#x2F;search&#x2F;code-se...</a>

Tangentially related, but maybe microsoft could actually do that : why is github&#x27;s search so terribly bad ?If they had developed a good powerful code search (custom semantic engine for most used languages, complex queries, exact&#x2F;fuzzy matches for syntax, use of history, etc) they could have become the primary way you interact with code you don&#x27;t know yet.As it stands now it&#x27;s simply more efficient to clone and use plain old grep, it&#x27;s really sad.

&gt; what did they do with LinkedIn?? I havent noticed any change.I think that&#x27;s his point. He&#x27;s saying that LinkedIn has the opportunity to do lots of interesting things, and appears to be squandering it.

I think it has actually improved. They added messaging and now I can get real-time recruiter spam to ignore.

LinkedIn acquired Lynda and are continuing to dominate the online learning space in enterprise. Not sure what you think &quot;happened&quot; to LinkedIn but they&#x27;re doing great.

I&#x27;ve heard claims that Skype is no longer peer to peer but runs on msft networks&#x2F;infrastructure and performance has suffered. Can anyone confirm or shed any more light on that?

As I also replied to a sibling comment (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=17222045" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=17222045</a>):It used to be that it would only nag you to sign up or log in when trying to view extended profile attributes. Now it just requires you to log in to even view someone&#x27;s name and function. It shows up in the search results alright, some day I should find a UA changer to spoof Google and see if they do IP checking or just UA header checking, but generally, they made it completely locked-in now, whereas it was semi-open (at least to view) before. It was a user-configurable setting whether your profile could be viewed by people who are not signed in, and now it&#x27;s just a completely walled garden.

Agreed about Skype. They&#x27;re trying to make it like a messaging platform, and added a lot of crappy - completely unintuitive, complex UX that now make it extremely difficult to use their core features of phone calls, video calls, screen-sharing.

what did they do with LinkedIn?? I havent noticed any change.as for Skype, its completely ruined. I have it installed but I am scared to open it. Horrible GUI. Constant updates and generally just useless now.

Agree. And I had a similar issue with Skype.

Yes, serious chance of GitHub fading like SourceForge did.

Isn&#x27;t that one of the strengths of Git?  The whole decentralization means that it is ridiculously simply to take the whole shebang and migrate to another service or even just self host on a cheap VPS.

Me too. I&#x27;m waiting for the official transaction to be done and i&#x27;m preparing a plan b in case i have to migrate everything.More mitigation work is just what i needed. The skype one took years, many failures, and resulting in the use of several tools instead of one. Not a win.

&gt; what actually happened with LinkedIn?It used to be that it would only nag you to sign up or log in when trying to view extended profile attributes. Now it just requires you to log in to even view someone&#x27;s name and function. It shows up in the search results alright, some day I should find a UA changer to spoof Google and see if they do IP checking or just UA header checking, but generally, they made it completely locked-in now, whereas it was semi-open (at least to view) before. It was a user-configurable setting whether your profile could be viewed by people who are not signed in, and now it&#x27;s just a completely walled garden.

I would agree with Skype, but what actually happened with LinkedIn? I remember in pre-Microsoft times they asked me for my google email and password.. right not to log-ing with google but the email and password! I understand it&#x27;s more LinkedIn&#x27;s fault than Microsoft merit, but I just wanted to say, IMO there were never &quot;good times&quot; for LinkedIn

&gt;At some point Microsoft told me I had to change my password for Skype. The &quot;Reset your password&quot; process failed 6 times in a row. I eventually had to create a new, Microsoft ID, to use Skype.I had the same problem. Microsoft Live process didn&#x27;t feel very intuitive or smooth either.

True in regards to Skype, although that was an acquisition that was done under Balmer&#x27;s and not Satya Nadella. In regards to LinkedIn I don&#x27;t see what exactly you think has went&#x2F;is wrong with LinkedIn from a product perspective since it has been acquired. There&#x27;s no assurance had it not been acquired that it would have the features your advisees are claiming it should have. It is still the undisputed leader in its market.

I could make the same concern for a bunch of other companies who were to buy GitHub. Indeed, my main concern with GitHub being bought by anyone is the uncertainty of its future, and the fact that it no longer will be &#x27;neutral&#x27; ground, so to speak.It&#x27;s not in particular Microsoft that concerns me (although their embrace of Git, this seems inevitable for a company like that, considering its history), but that GitHub is now losing its appeal; it being independent from the big players.

&quot;LinkedIn&#x27;s growth has reaccelerated after the MSFT acquisition to the order of 35%.&quot;I honestly don&#x27;t know a single professional who still updates or cares about LinkedIn. I have no doubt that it still has the momentum from late comers and straggers, but...eh.Mind you, it was on the outs long before Microsoft bought it. Not its fault, but it just hit the no longer novel curve.&quot;with the vast resources it has available to it now&quot;This part is almost parody, and reeks of comical self delusion (or astroturfing). It is the rally cry of how so many of Microsoft&#x27;s purchases faded to black.

&quot;Consider what happened to LinkedIn&quot; Where are you going with this? LinkedIn&#x27;s growth has reaccelerated after the MSFT acquisition to the order of 35%. Only good things have happened at LinkedIn (I&#x27;m an employee) since the MSFT acquisition. If LinkedIn is not doing something, then it sure will consider doing it now, with the vast resources it has available to it now.

It&#x27;s tricky to backdoor git repositories, since it&#x27;s a Merkle tree of hashes and as such immutable. Any attempts at tampering would break git push&#x2F;pull for developers, and as such be immediately detected.Binaries could be backdoored, potentially, but with the trend towards deterministic reproducible builds I don&#x27;t see this happening.

And just like they acquired Skype to please the NSA and make changes for its sake, I wonder if this is also a move to backdoor Github projects without the project owners and contributors noticing.I, for one, would definitely stay away from any open source project that&#x27;s still hosted on a Microsoft-owned GitHub.

Could you tell us what &quot;other, better solutions&quot; would you recommend?

I had a pretty similar experience with skype.  I lost access to my connected email account and was essentially locked out of my account forever - repeated emails to support were met with silence, alas! Then I connected my facebook account to use skype instead... then they discontinued support for that.  Now it&#x27;s got to a point where attempting to create a new account on the OSX desktop version just shows an error screen every time, so I&#x27;m stuck unable to use skype forever.  I&#x27;ve moved on to other, better solutions, naturally :)

GitHub is also used for recruiting and many other data mining purposes, so seems obvious they’d find ways to restrict the data just enough or require you pay based on how you use the data somehow.And combining that data with LinkedIn’s data would be valuable indeed.

proprietary code which is hosted on git hub enterprise  is customer-run on premise, there’s no outside access

If Github does die out will be a slow and painful one. Skype was more of a radical change to the core technology. Of course anything is possible. I&#x27;m guessing many companies paying for Github&#x27;s enterprise products are more concerned about the implications of Microsoft owning the company that hosts their proprietary code.

Ads like this no doubt. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;darylginn&#x2F;status&#x2F;1002879517751414784" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;darylginn&#x2F;status&#x2F;1002879517751414784</a>

If Microsoft does to github what they did to Skype, pushes will go into the wrong repo without authentication for no reason just like Skype had contacts and messages jump from one account to another for no reason. Pretty much everything they touch software wise is a disaster. I wonder if there will be ads or how exactly they will fuck it up, but I know for sure they will. Gitlab is fairly equivalent in features and much better in their pricing and plans anyway so I expect a lot of projects to move.

Exactly. And AWS&#x2F;etc integrations will be the redheaded stepchild. Remember when MSFT had all that &quot;super cool&quot; IE-only stuff (VBScript, weird non-standard gradients) that then became the bane of every Web developer everywhere?

Microsoft is big, with different divisions you can consider what it did with consumer apps, but you&#x27;d be better off considering what it has done with developer tools.There, Microsoft shines. So, we will just have to wait and see what they do. My guess is the main thing they will do is make it super easy to deploy to azure from the github UI.

I&#x27;m worried. Consider what happened to Skype. Consider what happened to LinkedIn. I worry something similar will happen to Github. And I love Github.At some point Microsoft told me I had to change my password for Skype. The &quot;Reset your password&quot; process failed 6 times in a row. I eventually had to create a new, Microsoft ID, to use Skype. I lost all of my old contacts and had to slowly recreate my address book. This is really one of the worst transitions I can recall.Meanwhile, I act as adviser to a number of entrepreneurs, and the biggest trend of the last year has been &quot;I want to do _______ for professionals, since LinkedIn isn&#x27;t doing it.&quot; The lost opportunities for LinkedIn are very sad.

<pre><code> Someone explain the extreme feeling
 of uneasiness penetrating our brains.
</code></pre>
There is not a single Microsoft product&#x2F;tool&#x2F;service I like. Including the ones they aquired. So I expect them to turn GitHub into something I don&#x27;t like too.

What does Github have to do with free software? It&#x27;s a closed-source, non-free SaaS. Free software repos can (mostly) relocate to any other hoster as they wish.

Microsoft has a history of taking the open source philosophy out of their products. Github is one of the few large, commercially successful platforms that have not only embraced, but built their entire platform around those fundamental values.It&#x27;s not a surprise we feel unease, and to hope that Microsoft is actually going in a direction that aligns with those values, instead of simply twisting them for it&#x27;s own continued success - that&#x27;s being a bit naive.We&#x27;ll all see what happens, but honestly, I wish their was one web platform that existed out there, that could stay stable in it&#x27;s philosophy, and not succumb to embracing the chaos invoked through economic success.There are plenty of examples that stick to the core philosophy of open source software and open ideas, but there are rarely examples that manage to become extremely successful and maintain that success without drowning in the confusion created through their own influence.

I feel the same. It&#x27;s not the end of free software, but the end of free software as we knew it (or something, still trying to rationalize).Someone explain the extreme feeling of uneasiness penetrating our brains.

I feel a great disturbance in the Force. As if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

Alot of MSFT codebase was moved to Git in 2016 and this just makes sense. Wow.Wonder how hiring&#x2F;firing is going to be now at Git. They are pro-remote, while most MSFT positions are going no longer remote.

The Skype buy was seven years ago, and it was a pretty user hostile piece of software before that.Post Balmer we&#x27;ve seen a more open (in the transparent, consultative, community sensitive sense) attitude, with genuine contributions to free software.People also seem to be citing LinkedIn as an example, but that doesn&#x27;t feel like it got any more unpleasant since the buyout.

Minecraft, LinkedIn as examples. While LinkedIn has not gone super well, it has been left to make the decisions that it made on it&#x27;s own.Minecraft has also gone untouched - it&#x27;s still hosted on AWS in fact.

They bought xamarin and then made it open source and free. They also have continued to support mono despite having .net core

I&#x27;m not familiar with recent behaviour anything in particular? (My memory goes to Skype...)

From at least two angles this is great news for Gitlab.But it feels a bit like the Atlassian &#x2F; Trello arrangement, which has had little impact on users.From recent behaviour I&#x27;d expect Microsoft to have a very light touch here.

80% of github projects here are hidden, inhouse trustworthy secret private projects! This is such horrible news!

If you&#x27;ve used GPL then you have nothing to worry about.

A shitty free browser developers still have to deal with today because enterprises refuse to fix their garbage in-house software..I&#x27;m not bitter at all.

Fair enough. After all, they did ship a free web browser with their operating system, 24 years ago.Some things you can just never forgive.

don&#x27;t worry, I&#x27;m sure they&#x27;ve got backups

If this is true, I delete my account immediately.The last thing I want is my code to fall into the hands of MS.

Can you maybe elaborate a little on BizSpark and how it was helpful?

Not the best example... BizSpark has been discontinued.

There will probably be a decent amount of skepticism around this acquisition (with fair reason), but I&#x27;d like to think of this as an opportunity for Microsoft to demonstrate their respect and commitment to the developer community. I say this as someone who has been pleasantly surprised at how helpful BizSpark has been. Staying cautiously optimistic.

I stopped trusting them when they stole the intellectual property of numerous small companies years before the _NSAKEY debacle.  I know, I know, Bill Gates is supposed to be some kind of good guy now (malaria, etc.) but I can&#x27;t think of any good reason to trust any robber baron, based on the past histories of robber barons.  Even Andrew Carnegie was an asshole in the final analysis.

Microsoft is basically the corporate version of the ship of Theseus at this point. The have a lot of questionable stuff in their history, but the leadership and the culture at large has shifted drastically since those days. At a certain point it is worth reevaluating one&#x27;s opinions and question whether it is still worth hanging on to those old grudges.I can certainly understand why people might be skeptical of GitHub being purchased by any of the big players in tech. But I don&#x27;t see how Microsoft is really a worse buyer than any of the other potential bidders.

I don&#x27;t think anyone on HN has forgotten considering it&#x27;s repeated ad nauseum on every single Microsoft story on here.

Don&#x27;t forget about:
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...</a>

For the avoidance of doubt, the postmaster@nsa.gov address has nothing do to with _NSAKEY.Somebody used this address in a joke, and then a Wikipedia editor took it seriously and put it in the article. sigh

Why I&#x27;ll never trust Microsoft ever again.&quot;postmaster@nsa.gov&quot;<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;NSAKEY" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;NSAKEY</a>

So it looks like Github is going to be the next sourceforge! Onward to gitlab!

Personally, I can&#x27;t wait to start doing git push and pulls using HoloLens.

Clippy was last activated by default back in 2001 (!). When are we going to let go of this old joke?

“Hi, I’m Gitty! I see you are having difficulty submitting your large file. Would you like some help with that?” [YES] [NO]

Finally someone with the right attitude. I am waiting for a change in the URL ... <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;GitHub.NET" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;GitHub.NET</a>

&quot;Please wait while we&#x27;re updating your repo&quot;
... 30-60 mins ... connection timed out

I&#x27;m wrestling with Sharepoint as I type. I don&#x27;t see why all you lot shouldn&#x27;t have to suffer too.

&gt; SharepointDon&#x27;t you even dare think about it much less tell MS about this idea

With CandyCrush™ included in all free-tier repos!

Personally, I can&#x27;t wait for GitHub360 Professional for Sharepoint 360.

I thought VS Code was Atom? (well, a fork of)

Atom is open source though. One company can not decide to kill it.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;atom&#x2F;atom" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;atom&#x2F;atom</a>

&gt; I hope they don&#x27;t discontinue AtomHadn&#x27;t crossed my mind that they might drop Atom for VS Code before...

True, but Windows users would find it odd if an app didn&#x27;t suck. It has to match the overall Windows experience.Note: I&#x27;m working on making Chef code work for Windows deployments of an application that runs under Node. I have strong opinions on Windows right now.

If it’s any consolation, Apple Music is terrible on iOS and MacOS as well.

Were it a consumer product I&#x27;d agree. But this is a developer tool and MS have been doing fairly well in that regard the last few years with azure and vscode.Not happy as others have stated of pretty much the largest neutral party in development being absorbed.

We&#x27;ll eventually see what happened to Skype happen to GitHub. Not sure how it will manifest itself, but the bloat will find its way in somehow.

How many build from source as opposed to downloading binaries from atom.io?

&gt; I hope they don&#x27;t discontinue AtomAtom is MIT licensed, GitHub can&#x27;t &quot;discontinue&quot; Atom so much as stop paying their engineers to contribute to the project. After that it&#x27;s whether there&#x27;s enough impetus outside the company to continue the work (I suspect there probably is, Facebook are heavily invested in Atom).

The GP means they were neutral with respect to the tech giants&#x27; ecosystems. They didn&#x27;t favor Amazon or Microsoft or Google&#x27;s tech. Consider that Apple, Google, and Microsoft all had GitHub organizations and hosted code there. That&#x27;s what they&#x27;re talking about

&quot;because Github was a neutral third-party without any priorities&quot;...what are you talking about?  They are a company with a purpose to make money.  And when I think about some of the other possible buyers, I am fine with Microsoft.

Do you think Gitlab will stay independent? They’re burning money. They’ll in all likelihood be acquired in the coming decade as well.Or do you think GitHub didn’t want this? Microsoft didn’t force anyone here. GitHub received hundreds of millions in funding. They couldn’t just stay put as a money losing entity.

It sucks. We had as you said a neutral site everyone used. Now the big guys will move their code. Hopefully we will get a new common GitHub that is neutral and they will use. Sounds like it might be gitlab.Just wish MS could have left alone. They just do not help move things forward. Now wasted cycles have to be spent to deal with this thanks to MS.

LinkedIn still feels like it&#x27;s old self to me. Not that that really matters one way another to me.

I&#x27;m sure they&#x27;ll try to &#x27;Microsoft&#x27; it. They could never keep their hands off any UI in any product, no matter if it works or not, and especially lately, leaving a rather spectacular trail of destruction in their wake.

GitHub has had more ethics fails in the past few years than MS.

This is sad news. Partially because I don&#x27;t care for Microsoft, but mostly because Github was a neutral third-party without any priorities. I hope they don&#x27;t discontinue Atom or apply their UX styling to the site&#x2F;desktop app. Like Spotify, I felt safer that a company was just doing hosting in their domain (of music or code projects) and wouldn&#x27;t try to shovel some other tech into it like Apple making Apple Music terrible on Windows. It&#x27;s good to have more tech companies just doing their single thing well.

It is weird, isn’t it? GitHub was the first SaaS I ever subscribed to out of my own pocket. Spotify was the next one.

Plus they have very large private enterprise instances of github.

The costs of the fancy office and the workforce should be quite high as well.The cash flow is probably good but even with a million customers at $5 a month, that&#x27;s not enough to sustain a large company.

My guess is they built a very expensive system for the kind of scale they support. It&#x27;s all RoR and sharded mysql right? Considering how dynamic it is, the resources to power that must be mind boggling.

The weird part is that they were actually profitable before they started taking funding. [1][2][1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;signalvnoise.com&#x2F;posts&#x2F;2486-bootstrapped-profitable-proud-github" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;signalvnoise.com&#x2F;posts&#x2F;2486-bootstrapped-profitable-...</a>
[2]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;a16z.com&#x2F;2012&#x2F;07&#x2F;09&#x2F;software-eats-software-development-2&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;a16z.com&#x2F;2012&#x2F;07&#x2F;09&#x2F;software-eats-software-developme...</a>

Does it matter? Twitter isn&#x27;t profitable, Youtube isn&#x27;t profitable. Nothing in capitalism is really profitable, or it sometimes seems. Most wealth is just ownership of speculative profit or return. But if you have profit, you&#x27;re doing something wrong because you ought to be re-investing that to create more future speculative profit.Anyway, they likely could have remained unprofitable for a long time instead of doing this.

I don&#x27;t understand how GitHub has been unable to become profitable. Anyone know more and want to share some details?

You didn&#x27;t use Youtube before it was acquired? I vividly remember finding a lot of cool videos and music that I couldn&#x27;t otherwise have found. Now once you watch a few garbage videos it&#x27;s all Youtube autosuggests to you. Also if you start exploring videos they&#x27;ll probably be mostly around the same what you&#x27;ve already seen and not diverge too much from what&#x27;s popular. Anything novel and out-of-ordinary is pushed to the bottom in most cases.It&#x27;s hard to pinpoint what exactly is different but the freshness of it is gone. I don&#x27;t expect anymore to find anything super-interesting and the same old stuff that I&#x27;ve already watched is being suggested to me again and again.

Videos get demonetised for questionable or non reasonsSubscribers don&#x27;t see videos from those they&#x27;re subscribed to in their home page(a depressingly large percentage of the time).Things like the YouTube inbox are so &#x27;well&#x27; pushed to the background that most people don&#x27;t remember they exist, let alone know how to use them for anything.Recommendations are borked, and often consist of videos you&#x27;ve already seen ten times (maybe even ten times today).Rules in general seem to applied based on how popular a YouTuber is&#x2F;how much money they bring in instead of what they actually do on the site.Fair use is basically non existent, or very poorly applied overall. Sometimes people are able to get paid off content they don&#x27;t own and it&#x27;s almost impossible to get it taken down&#x2F;demonetised, sometimes content is claimed through complete lies by the claimant.Google account integration means that any setup related issue can break large parts of the site. For example, I couldn&#x27;t previously get Adsense on my account; not because I wasn&#x27;t qualified, but because the account I used Adsense with and the one I used YouTube for were different, and the merge basically broke any chance of connecting them.YouTube comment&#x2F;channel moderation is really bad, with few tools leading to horrendously toxic comment sections.And then there are various bits of the interface that make me wonder exactly who designed them. For example, you&#x27;ve got a username, display name and channel name, and all can be completely different from one another. Or conflict. This makes it easy to confuse or mislead people, since youtube.com&#x2F;user&#x2F;[whatever] and youtube.com&#x2F;c&#x2F;[whatever] can be completely different people&#x2F;channels.

I was going to quote YouTube as the one counterexample to your otherwise valid rule. What&#x27;s wrong with YouTube? (other than being part of the Google Surveillance State GoStaPo)

Youtube would probably be dead if not for Google.

Google acquired Youtube so early on, how could you know what it would be like without them?

Oh god, I hope not. Anytime a big company acquires almost anything, the quality level drops off a cliff. Microsoft with Skype is the obvious example, but so is anything bought by Google (like YouTube).Add to this the bad experience we had with Sourceforge, and I definitely worry it could be all over for GitHub if this is true.

I&#x27;m not sure what exactly you&#x27;re reacting to, but a lot of us absolutely do not want to self-host our github repos. Because it&#x27;s work, because we don&#x27;t need it, because we like using github&#x2F;gitlab&#x2F;other as a &quot;marketplace&quot;

But what about the social &#x2F; code sharing &#x2F; collaboration part, which is arguably the most interesting part? We need a quality central meeting place.

1. Electricity cost
2. Need for constant electricity
3. Internet cost
4. Need for constant Internet access
5. Cost of hardware
6. Heat generated by the running hardware
7. Noise generated by the running hardware
8. Space occupied by the hardware
9. Need to update and maintain hardware&#x2F;software
10. Worse discoverability for your repos
11. ISP asking questions
12. Government asking questions
13. Police asking questionsThen again, I live in a &quot;developing&quot; country so most of these might not be an issue for you.

Its very hard to open issues or PRs etc on many self-hosted setups, as they don&#x27;t have a way to create logins, or accept other identities.

People want the nice UI of Github as opposed to just a hosted .git folder, and self-hosting Gitlab is a hassle compared to using a SaaS.

If you self-host you will probably never get outside contributions. For most people it isn&#x27;t worth taking the time to figure out whatever system you use. I&#x27;d like to see a federated system like GNUsocial&#x2F;Mastodon for git. I&#x27;ve thought about trying to make such a system but I don&#x27;t know much about federation.

For us (sqlitebrowser.org), self hosting the code, comments, and similar should be achievable with something like Gitea (Open Source GitHub clone).Hosting our downloads though... hmmm... that could be more tricky.Our releases generally have ~180k downloads a month, with each being (very) roughly 15MB in size.That&#x27;s only 2.5TB&#x2F;mo, but the downloads aren&#x27;t evenly spaced throughout the day.We&#x27;d probably need a small cluster of servers with unmetered bandwidth or something. Scaleway might suit.

Except for the social part as far as I know, I hope that Bitbucket could see this as a big opportunity and expand that aspect of their platform.

I worry about github too. BUT, at least with github most of the data is open. And they have a worthy competitor in Gitlab. Might be a bit of disruption if MS mess things up, but not a disaster.

Microsoft has slain giants before. They will try to do it again. No one is too big to fail.

Yes, particularly because of this:
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...</a>

I would be as worried if it was AWS or Google.Github should remain a neutral ground in my opinion.

the history of Microsoft is the reason why we all reacting this way. But encouraged by the move they made lately coming into Linux, even though other players have forced their hand

I&#x27;d recommend running your own FossilSCM server. It supports full code repo, wiki, bugtracking, and more. And it&#x27;s free software to boot.I&#x27;m looking to see if it&#x27;s feasible to write a github-&gt;fossil layer to make it easy for programmers to dump to local. Right now, Git is easy to dump... but those issues and wiki support isnt dumpable yet..

If there are other things to use, it isn&#x27;t much of a monopoly.

Only way to disrupt monopoly is to use something else. I am going to migrate all my projects from GitHub. Be an example you want the world to be.

Changing the remote doesn&#x27;t migrate anything in the issue tracker, merge requests, webhooks, pages or wiki

This is also why I put my documentation in markdown files in the repo instead of using the Github wiki. I knew it would save me hassle later.

Agreed on both points. The shift will bring a lot of opportunity to build a more decentralized repo base. I think something like (Keybase)[<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;keybase.io" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;keybase.io</a>] might be interesting.

I could see developers ditching GitHub with the acquisition for a perceived conflict of interest. It&#x27;s really easy to change your remote.I see a potentially big market opportunity for anyone who wants to compete in the space now.

How profitable would they be if they didn’t pursue “growth at all costs” and built GitHub with a small and focused team like Stack Overflow or WhatsApp?

They weren&#x27;t profitable. So the problem perhaps is these cool free tools that some people rely on just don&#x27;t have a clear way to make money.

As a startup, worrying about competition from Microsoft hasn&#x27;t been a big deal for almost a decade. I would be more worried about Facebook, Amazon, and Google.

&gt; monopolizationConglomeration, unless you hated github before which I wouldn&#x27;t object too.I agree with you anyway.

Exactly. Code.google.com even provided links for porting repos to GH. Will Google revive it&#x27;s own code repository in light of this move?

Probably because its fairly low-risk. I have ~270 Github repos. About a year ago I made a ~5 line Python script that added Gitlab as another origin to each repo. I still use (used) Gitlab as my main host, I&#x27;m a paying customer - but for me to flick over to Gitlab is a one-liner.

Simple answer: GitHub is good to useI&#x27;m all for FOSS (Git webgui) solutions, but they were absolutely not competitive until recently. Even now, with less trust, the social effect and the lack of need of maintenance and setup is attractive.

Why did the F&#x2F;OSS community put all their eggs in one basket? Hell a lot of big companies did also. I wonder how they&#x27;re going to react to this?

Why is it important? What are you relying on? It&#x27;s just git. Dozens of other services that do the same thing, many that arent losing money every year.

Well, Google recently also purchased Kaggle, another major open-source repository for code. It hasn&#x27;t really changed anything for now, but Microsoft&#x27;s purchase will be in the same vein. I think that Microsoft&#x27;s contribution to the open-source community in the last few years kind of makes sense for why they are purchasing it, just like Google purchased Kaggle because of their contribution to ML.

Your dream of “neutral” VCS is misfounded. Websites like GitHub are massive bandwidth and storage hogs and needs huge cash burn just for dev ops. Unfortunately they can’t be reasonably profitable as well because revenue sources are rather tiny. This means every vcs company out there offering free for all plan is bound to be sold or go bankrupt.For GitHub I would have wished Google bought them because there is huge synergy both ways. With Microsoft, eventually some CVP there will realize that there is no profitability and they will leave it to rot.

I am worried that a company as important to the open-source community as github is now owned by one of the major players. I think it really impacts the neutrality of github. If I would compete with microsoft in a certain space, I would really think twice about relying on github.Also, this monopolization is driving me mad.

&quot;The acquisition provides a way forward for San Francisco-based GitHub, which has been trying for nine months to find a new CEO and has yet to make a profit from its popular service that allows coders to share and collaborate on their work.&quot;Github was profitable day 1 from what I remember, before they took the $100 million from Andreseen, right?

Gitlab.com is what I was already slowing moving to, because their code is open source. This will just hasten that migration.

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gitea.io&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gitea.io&#x2F;</a>

Can the old CEO be sued for &#x27;breach of trust&#x27;?
At least they must have to give prior notice before any of our sensitive data (trusted to github) falls into the hands of MS (untrustworthy)?

I searched through the comments to see if anyone else had the same thought I did.

Previous discussion re:acquisition talks: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=17208293" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=17208293</a>

Interesting that you say this. If the price was 3x what it was (for both individuals and organizations), I feel both parties would still find it valuable enough.

Look at Amazon Prime. For ONLY $99 free video, deals, free shipping, and many more.This purchase is about increasing 365 value. They&#x27;ll make the pro version free with office 356 subscription.

GitHub became too expensive. I’m curious to see the new pricing model.

Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire GitHub