UPDATE 2018/06/04
Microsoft confirms the acquisition.
The Verge just reported that Microsoft has reportedly acquired GitHub.
What's your opinion about it?
Some of the questions I can think of for the discussion are
- Will Open source contributors and project stay on GitHub?
- Will Microsoft abandon VSTS (Visual Studio Team Services)?
- etc.
And also,
Gnome has recently moved to GitLab.
- Would you keep using GitHub? or consider alternatives such as GitLab, BitBucket, etc?
I am wondering about how you think about this "supposed" acquisition.
Oldest comments (171)
This is Microsoft coming completely full circle on open source.
MS has some major open source projects already on GitHub and this will give them the corporate alignment to go even further in this direction.
Visual Studio Code
Visual Studio Code - Open Source ("Code - OSS")
The Repository
This repository ("
Code - OSS") is where we (Microsoft) develop the Visual Studio Code product. Not only do we work on code and issues here, we also publish our roadmap, monthly iteration plans, and our endgame plans. The source code here is available to everyone under the standard MIT license.Visual Studio Code
Visual Studio Code is a distribution of the
Code - OSSrepository with Microsoft specific customizations released under a traditional Microsoft product license.Visual Studio Code combines the simplicity of a code editor with what developers need for their core edit-build-debug cycle. It provides comprehensive code editing, navigation, and understanding support along with lightweight debugging, a rich extensibility model, and lightweight integration with existing tools.
Visual Studio Code is updated monthly with new features and bug fixes. You can download it for…
TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.
TypeScript
TypeScript is a language for application-scale JavaScript. TypeScript adds optional types to JavaScript that support tools for large-scale JavaScript applications for any browser, for any host, on any OS. TypeScript compiles to readable, standards-based JavaScript. Try it out at the playground, and stay up to date via our blog and Twitter account.
Installing
For the latest stable version:
For our nightly builds:
Contribute
There are many ways to contribute to TypeScript.
This project has adopted the Microsoft Open Source Code of Conduct. For more information see the Code of…
VS code just came out of nowhere and being loved.
It seems like those two main projects are being worked on well with the community
Those are all projects under Microsoft’s rule. Name some OSS where Microsoft is a good citizen. The GVFS issue is a clear example of ol’ Microsoft behavior. I am not convinced MS will not push GVFS down peoples throats via github and there by embrace, extend, and extinguish Git.
How is GVFS a bad thing?
Microsoft Engineers spent time with GitHub Engineers to build the Git Virtual File System, because Microsoft needed to use GIT as a version control for really large repositories like that of Windows which is about 300GB.
Standard GIT was unusable for such sizes.
Changes made during this development have been gradually added to standard GIT over time. gvfs.io
Because
1) GVFS has been Gnome Virtual File System for a really long time, and this poses a naming conflict. Microsoft's response is pretty much PR nonsense and they ignore this issue.
2) Microsoft finds Git's rule about backwards compatibility troublesome. If they can, they will violate this rule and break Git repositories when they feel like.
3) GVFS is pretty much Windows-only.
4) GVFS is Microsoft's thing, not a git community thing. They have shown no interesting in working together to create a solution everybody feels happy with. It's GVFS or GTFO.
Edit: it looks like MS starting to address #1
GVFS for Mac < blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/devops/20... > ... interesting!
Anyone use GVFS for Windows 10? Smooth sailing, or rough around the edges?
Node.JS and OCI are projects where MS seems to be behaving nicely. And unless your project is very large, I'm not sure how GVFS is even a concern for you.
It might concern me when GitHub is going to require Microsoft's version of Git, which isn't fully compatible with the standard Git.
GitHub already announced that they are going to adopt Microsoft's Git Virtual File System. This feels a lot like the Embrace and Extend.
What "Microsoft's version of Git" are you referring to here? It can't be GVFS, because that's a virtual file system driver that's separate from the git protocol and repository.
This one: github.com/Microsoft/git
The recommended install when you are going to install GVFS, also the only one which Microsoft tests with GVFS.
WOAH, those GitHub unfurl links are 👌
An another good contribute from Microsoft is gvfs.
github.com/Microsoft/GVFS
I would prefer if they didn't, considering Microsoft's past treatment of other projects (LinkedIn, Skype).
They haven't really done much to LinkedIn besides bundling it into another product offering. LinkedIn was always really terrible. Skype was okay, so yeah agreed they ruined that. But that was also many years ago.
Yeah, if anything I think MS has had a good impact on LinkedIn (or maybe it couldn't get worse). But in general I think MS's reputation is worse than its recent moves.
Of course, there are probably still a few things to point to which could make you say "Yeah definitely still as evil or anti-user as ever"
Moving to Gitlab.
This is a great move. Microsoft has been great at OSS for many years and they want to integrate with everything. No longer are they driven by the "three Es" they did in the 90s and early 2000s. Their share price is at the highest it's ever been.
Microsoft isn't going to buy GitHub and ruin it. And let's face it Microsoft is the better choice in buying it compared with Oracle, IBM or even Facebook. Hell they're a better option than Google considering Google's latest mantra of developing for Chrome before others.
GitHub has stagnated for years. GitLab is far more capable and GitHub ignores community requests. This can only be a good thing for GitHub.
Thanks Kris for mentioning Google, Oracle, Facebook etc as I don't have a deep knowledge on how they are with the open source community.
I do believe that MS is trying hard not to become the next IBM and MS is working hard to get more involved in the open source community.
MS is the biggest corporate contributor to GitHub so this made a lot of sense
The company contribute for the OS or for the plataform, I think you injured...
Skype wasn't that great to begin with but that was also a long time ago. To bring it up ignores everything they've done in the past 5 years in OSS.
What about Mono? Microsoft bought Xamarin and it's gotten incredibly better and that's a closer parallel because it was a development platform. Heck, even Mojang and its products have gotten way better and more stable.
Microsoft's OSS initiatives have been fantastic for a while now. I don't understand the knee jerk reactions of "I have to move my code immediately!". Even if Microsoft's ultimate goal is to set GitHub on fire you'd have years before it happens, realistically.
It did take Microsoft a long time to burn CodePlex down to the ground.
CodePlex was already dying. Same as code.google.com ...
Skype WAS GREAT before microsoft buying it. !
And also TeamViewer WAS GREAT before you know..
LinkedIn's been going well since Microsoft's acquisition, as have Xamarin and Mojang. Xamarin is the most relevant example here (since they're a dev-focused company) and Microsoft's handling of that acquisition has been great. They open-sourced some stuff, and bundled Xamarin's mobile dev tools for free with Visual Studio (whereas they used to cost extra on top of VS)
They are doing something really bad with Skype on Windows though I think. They're trying to force us to use that new Windows 10 style version that's super slow, and not allowing us to use emoji reactions if we're using classic Skype.
Git and Github are two different things. You dont have to move to Fossil to move from Github.
different era, different leadership my friend. Todays' MSFT is a far better Open Source proponent than compared to any other big tech giants including Google.
Skype, Skype... that's all I hear. Ok, they ruined Skype, do we have nothing left? Don't we have much better alternatives? Who cares about Skype? Just use a better alternative I'm sure each one of you can name. And if they will ruin GH, so what? Everything and everyone will just move to a better place and call it a day.
it makes sense to me.
I really agree with you about the latest contributions from Microsoft and maybe it really is better to buy Microsoft from the platform but I really would like to understand why?
This is terrible news. MS builds toxic communities, as a long time .Net dev it was horrible, one of the many reasons I refuse to do .Net work now. They also don't know how to build open source projects. They go hey, here is this thing we built, designed and got ready to release but are only now showing the code for it. That's not open source. That's we built it, you can see the code and help us fix bugs.
Thanks Kevin for the point of view I haven't considered.
I can see that Open Source doesn't really mean just sharing the source code (showing what one did) but also develop with a community.
Let's hope that MS can contribute more to the Open Source community with GitHub acquisition.
What Kevin is describing is exactly how Google develops Android. AOSP does not welcome community contributions. Microsoft has been extremely open about Roslyn & .Net Core.
Initial thoughts: "ewwwwwwwwwww"
I'll still use GitHub though. I'm just comfortable with it, and if it ain't broke don't fix it you know?
I am sure it would require more than some acquisition in the background to push people away from GitHub. The community is too big for their members to give it up just because they don't like Microsoft. As long as Microsoft doesn't make decisions for GitHub like SourceForge did for SourceForge, people will stay there.
I am hoping that they have learned from the experience with CodePlex.
What I am worried about is how MS can have two separate services (GitHub & VSTS) that are essentially the same.
Someone in AspNetCore slack has mentioned that MS can keep GitHub as the Open Source platform while keeping VSTS as the enterprise closed source projects.
But it doesn't sound so feasible as GitHub already has a paid subscription.
It is likely that they will merge the products and either sell VSTS as a successor of GitHub Enterprise or they sell the merged product under two labels.
To lever the open source GitHub community for more involvement into their own open sourced technology hosted on GitHub and thereby recruiting open source developers for their technology would be the reason why they would keep the GitHub community alive.
Thanks for the insight @dguhl :)
I really loathe the idea that GitHub is now a Microsoft thing. I don't want to think that my OSS contributions are now hosted thanks to a kind concession by Microsoft.
It would be the same if it was Google, or Apple, or IBM, whatever, of course. I liked the fact that so much of OSS, even from giants, could find its home in an independent platform. Well, not anymore.
Moreover: what is Microsoft going to do with GitHub? What does it want to gain from its acquisition? Surely it's not because it wants to make a pretty penny with GitHub's private repos business.
I might consider moving to GitLab for my next projects.
Thanks Massimo for the feedback.
Would you like to share how OSS could be affected with GitHub under MS's management/"concession"?
I'm confident that it mostly won't change a thing.
I don't think Microsoft will make GitHub worse in terms of usability, availability, reliability. I believe it won't be ruined like Skype, and it will stay free for all open source projects, forever.
And yes, Microsoft has been very good to OSS recently
But that's not the whole story. I have this hunch that some OSS contributors, even a couple of big ones, will move from GitHub nonetheless, for the reasons I explained in my comment. Microsoft will own all of GitHub's accounts, let's not forget it, and a gentle grasp is still a grasp.
Now, said grasp is very different if it's from a company whose core business is providing a reliable platform for developers, and cannot do anything foolish with it; and a leviathan like Microsoft, for which $2bn are like pocket change, and has no real reason to monetize on GitHub the way GitHub has done so far. So, there must be another reason: is it really Satya Nadella's good heart?
We still don't know what Microsoft will do about GitHub, but so far, as common developers, there's nothing much to improve but there's a lot to ruin. Yes, of course GitHub was financially troubled so we could lose everything, but this isn't the conclusion I hoped for.
Not to mention there are a couple of projects by GitHub that are in direct competition with Microsoft's similar solutions. Namely Atom (which has lost a lot of momentum to VS Code, but still a valid editor) and Gitter. And what about Electron?
I guess we all have to wait, but I'm quite annoyed at the moment.
Thanks again, @maxart2501 .
I haven't considered that GitHub had all the reason to "monetize on GitHub" while MS can let it sink.
I think the main reason is to have a better offer from a single vendor from a single provider. VSTS is an ugly monster, and the workflow in GitHub is well-known. It makes sense... the other factor is the way they can 'steer' new deployments to Azure seamlessly. if there are tools that will help you deploy from your GitHub to Azure without any hassle many developers will start deploying to Azure, giving them an edge in a clear strategic product for M$.
As for competing products, I can only hope for them to get better. VSCode was built with Electron, I see no reason for m$ to kill something like that, and PRecisely I was listening HanselMinutes, and I heard many complaints about the Hithib integrations to BaseCamp. It makes sense to get something like MSTeams to improve on that front.
Microsoft can buy Skype, LinkedIn or other products used by bilions of people. Can buy also GitHub, but is forgotting that github is first of all a community,which usually is the most difficult thing to buy, because is more than a bunch of accounts.
Thanks @deep_erx .
I am highly looking forward to whether Linux source code will stay on GitHub or not(meaning how the Linux community will react)
If Linus has an rms-like reaction, they'll probably bolt. OTOH, there may be business reasons to stay.
The Linux on github repo is just a mirror and MS is very Linux friendly (Windows now has WSL)
Not to mention they’re a platinum member of the Linux Foundation...
The linux source was never on GitHub. The repo you linked is just a mirror of torvalds moster tree. It would not even be possible to develop a software like linux on GitHub
Ah, I wasn't aware that it was just a mirror.
just out of curiosity
Would you mind sharing why it'd not be possible to develop Linux on GitHub? (because I have never been involved with such a big project before)
There are many reasons, but I think the two most important are:
Thank you so much.
I was able to glance at what such a huge project involves.
That’s nonsense. If anything Github has a bunch of features that make it easier to keep track of forks.
The point is, a fork in the Github sense is to provide changes to thr master copy. As Linux as multiple masters, having all contributions go zo one master copy does not make sense
Also see this reply from Linus Torvalds himself: github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/17#...
i don't think Microsoft can remove the Linux source code from GitHub given they are working on their own Linux distribution
natfriedman.github.io/hello/
Nice insigt from the CEO-To-Be
Everyone is talking about open source, but what about all those software companies that paid GitHub to keep their repositories private? Now GitHub had sold access to that code to a potential (if not already current) competitor that has enough resources to put them out of business. I would consider this a serious breach of trust.
This is not a healthy situation, even if MS turns out to be a good steward of GitHub's legacy.
Companies should use enterprise Github for that exact reason. They get a system from Github to set up internally, all code stays internal. Github doesn't see any of it. Smaller companies/startups may not have the cash for enterprise github vs private repos I guess, I'm not sure about the cost comparison, but from an security of IP standpoint, that's a move you have to make if you want to use Github and you're a company/startup of any size.
MS wouldn’t breach that trust because it would kill the service instantly. This happens all over industry. Netflix is hosted on AWS yet Amazon has Prime Video
Great example !
Big companies would never breach the trust of its users. Isn't that right, Facebook?
Microsoft is far better than the likes of Facebook
Absolutely, especially when the users were blind and just skipped all requests for permissions and agreements until Facebook did what it had been doing before but for the wrong political party and the people in power pulled some strings to get the media to kindly explain to the users that their trust war breached. "Hey, guys, remember that agreement you signed up to without even reading? We're telling you that's all Facebook's fault now go and burn it to the ground".
It's always a risk decision to put source code in the hands of a 3rd party. Here in GBG, right now we have a significant amount of code in Bitbucket on premise, and in VSTS in the cloud. We did due diligence reviews and chose /not/ to use Github, or Gitlab, or any other cloud hosted SCM aside from VSTS a couple of years ago, mostly due to the information security risks they presented at the time: lack of redundancy for Github (now fixed), contractual issues with Gitlab, lack of multi-factor authentication support for Bitbucket in Atlassian cloud (also now fixed). We /do/ have a public Github organisation, for public working with collaborators (early days BTW!) for such things as maintaining API wrapper libraries. Even there, Github is not master, it's a public clone of selected source code.
Other large orgs (including the other big players) all have Github accounts, and use them for similar things, in similar ways to us, open source work with communities of interested parties to help sell their actual value-delivering products (eg: AWS templates, Mulesoft API samples, etc.)
Microsoft have very little to gain by pushing these things away (there are several perfectly workable alternatives after all so it's not going to dent the other orgs collaboration, just generate legal pain), and they are unlikely to have access to the 'crown-jewels' intellectual property of serious competitors, unless said competitor really didn't do much risk assessment. Even then, it would be a direct breach of contract if such access occurred, and likely a PR nightmare in a social media world.
I'm pretty happy with this from a day job POV, and personally it really doesn't make much difference, I have no private repos to worry about.
MSFT already has tons of competitors' data through OneDrive, O365, Azure, not to mention VSTS... There is literally no way they would breach that trust, not because of any ethical concerns, but because the strength of their brand is that their sales people can call your CIO or CSO and someone will loosen the purse strings and renew your O365 contract for another 3 years. If they destroy that relationship it will basically be the end of microsoft.
For me it's good thing. First maybe they improve it. They developers to where always very good and second it will spread OSS communities between few services which is healthier for everyone.
So far, opinions seems highly divided between whether the acquisition is good for the OSS community or not.
Seems like many are skeptical but would you share how MS can improve the relationship with the OSS community with the acquisition?
I'm just looking forward to the "Please add me to your professional repo network" emails.
And possibly let GitHub users communicate via Skype? 😜
Discord FTW
I don't know the source of this but... just saw this 😜
Oy. The phrasing on that ad is divisive, at best. Assuming, of course, that it is real.
It isn't.
The source is Daryl Ginn
Ah ha!
Thanks Michiel :)
I wonder how many MS competitors removed their private repos from github
MS wouldn’t breach that trust because it would kill the service instantly. This happens all over industry. Netflix is hosted on AWS yet Amazon has Prime Video
Especially when you realise that it's not the breach that matters, but the beneficiary of the breach.
I'm on the fence. Microsoft have really managed to pull off a huge culture change with respect to open source, and @krissiegel is spot on in that they're likely to be a much better steward of the project and community than any other potential corporate sponsor. If we were talking about Google or Amazon, there're good odds I'd reflexively jump ship the instant the deal was publicly confirmed; I don't like either their sheer operational scope or their data collection & usage practices (I have an Android phone, which is both exquisite fodder for irony and kind of the case in point). I'd expect Microsoft to take it seriously and make an honest go of running it, but I'm instinctively wary of GitHub losing its independence no matter what.
Thanks Dian.
It seems like MS has been making pretty good/steady progress to support open source movement compared to Google & Amazon.
lol. I wonder why 😜
GitLab is live streaming.
Talking about GitHub acquisition now. (10:13PM EST)