Linux Foundation Celebrates Microsoft's GitHub Acquisition (theverge.com) 162
The Linux Foundation has endorsed Microsoft's acquisition of GitHub. In a blog post, Jim Zemlin, the executive director at the Linux Foundation, said: "This is pretty good news for the world of Open Source and we should celebrate Microsoft's smart move." The Verge reports: 10 years ago, Zemlin was calling for Microsoft to stop secretly attacking Linux by selling patents that targeted the operating system, and he also poked fun at Microsoft multiple times over the years. "I will own responsibility for some of that as I spent a good part of my career at the Linux Foundation poking fun at Microsoft (which, at times, prior management made way too easy)," explains Zemlin. "But times have changed and it's time to recognize that we have all grown up -- the industry, the open source community, even me." Nat Friedman, the future CEO of GitHub (once the deal closes), took to Reddit to answer questions on the company's plans. "We are not buying GitHub to turn it into Microsoft; we are buying GitHub because we believe in the importance of developers, and in GitHub's unique role in the developer community," explains Friedman. "Our goal is to help GitHub be better at being GitHub, and if anything, to help Microsoft be a little more like GitHub."
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
THE END TIMES (Score:2)
These are the end times. Signs and portents we can not ignore.
How long? (Score:5, Insightful)
GitHub aligns really well with Microsoft's position as a development tool company. Unless you want Embarcadero or Oracle to buy them, the best big dev tool company to buy them was Microsoft on that front.
How long until the E-mails from GitHub saying "our terms of service have changed"?
I'm betting this happens "before the end of summer".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"All your code are belong to Us. You will be assimilated, resistance is futile."
Re: (Score:1)
well, you can give your private repos to microsoft. i won't. nor will i use a microsoft account to access the site.
don't believe a thing microsoft says right now wrt github. there's a nasty ulterior motive here, it just hasn't been uncovered yet.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
because they're not an advertising company
...Except that they are an advertising company. Unless you've been living under a rock the last decade, you must know about Bing, and of course, all the advertisements that have been built-in to Windows 10. Why are you lying?
Perhaps a better analysis: (Score:5, Interesting)
This amazing quote from the Slashdot story demonstrates an avoidance of reality, in my opinion: "We are not buying GitHub to turn it into Microsoft; we are buying GitHub because we believe in the importance of developers, and in GitHub's unique role in the developer community," explains Friedman.
My opinion: Microsoft bought GitHub because it expects to make money. To begin evaluating GitHub's future, consider what Microsoft did to Skype and LinkedIn.
Harvard Business Review article: Why Microsoft Is Willing to Pay So Much for GitHub [hbr.org]. Quote from that article: "GitHub was acquired for close to 30x annual recurring revenue (an astronomical multiple)."
Another quote from the Harvard Business Review article:
"In other words, Microsoft is not paying $7.5 billion for GitHub for its ability to make money (its financial value). It's paying for the access it gets to the legions of developers who use GitHub's code repository products on a daily basis (the company's strategic value) -- so they can be guided into the Microsoft developer environment, where the real money is made."
In my opinion that statement damages the reputation of the Harvard Business Review. What it really means is something like this: "... legions of developers can be FORCED into the Microsoft developer environment, where the real money is made."
Microsoft bought access? (Score:3)
Microsoft bought access to the code of GitHub's paying customers.
Re: (Score:1)
Is this analysis correct?
Microsoft bought access to the code of GitHub's paying customers.
Correct; But why would they care? Microsoft has always been ultra-paranoid about using other people's code. Except one part of Microsoft:
Microsoft has a bunch of Patent Troll buddies. Microsoft can now legally tip them off that a given company is using patents that Microsoft sold to them. In fact it probably has a contractual obligation to do so. "if the seller becomes aware that another company, including partners and customers, is using the transferred patent without a license then the seller must
Articles about Microsoft and Linux/Android (Score:5, Informative)
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish: How Microsoft Plans to Get Rid of Linux/Android [techrights.org] (April 20, 2015) That article contains these links:
Microsoft Hates Linux -- Part I -- The UEFI Attack on GNU/Linux [techrights.org]
Microsoft Hates Linux -- Part II -- Patent Lawsuits Against Android/Linux Still Going On, New Ones Filed [techrights.org]
Microsoft Hates Linux -- Part III -- Abducting the Competition (Android) [techrights.org]
Microsoft Hates Linux -- Part IV -- Deleting, Attacking Android/Linux From Within [techrights.org]
Microsoft Hates Linux -- Part V -- Dumping and Surveillance to Counter GNU/Linux Insurgence [techrights.org]
Microsoft Hates Linux -- Part VI -- Propaganda Wars Against Free Software Facilitated While Media Control is Secured and Abused [techrights.org]
Re: (Score:1)
I don't care how good Azure is or how good-hearted the developers of that project are. If they are still treating their Win10 users like shit, there is no guarantee of anything good.
Look at how a company treats the plebs and you see what they're really like. Unless they suddenly pull all the telemetry out of Windows and stop being dicks with the users they currently have, there's nothing to indicate that the new crops of "users' will be treated any differently.
Awesome captcha: scorned.
Re: (Score:3)
Bill Gates said he still manages Microsoft: "I'm there about 15 percent of the time." [charlierose.com]
Microsoft has become EVEN MORE extremely abusive, in my opinion, and the opinion of many others. Two of many, many examples:
Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made. [networkworld.com] "Buried in
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 10.
"Fuck you, you're getting spyware and ads and a vendor lock-in app store whether you want it or not" is not compatible with your theory that Microsoft has been taken over by open source revolutionaries.
Re: (Score:3)
They will turn Github into a nice tax write-off. A company that makes billions and billions likes having having tax writeoffs
Re: (Score:3)
Or Google, for that matter. Do the same exercise for Android Studio. Make GitHub the new "Google Code".
oh yeah, i always celebreate when... (Score:5, Insightful)
hey Linux Foundation do you like seeing a corporation that has had 20+ years of animosity towards GNU/Linux & FOSS buy a resource that makes downloading GNU/Linux & FOSS possible, how long before microsoft starts deleting all the good GNU/Linux & FOSS code and makes access by paid subscription only? then what?
Re:oh yeah, i always celebreate when... (Score:5, Interesting)
I can appreciate your concern, since the recent history with Skype and some other acquisitions left a bit of a bad taste, but this article from ArsTechnica suggests that Microsoft might have been the best option:
https://arstechnica.com/gadget... [arstechnica.com]
The Microsoft of today is not the same Microsoft as in the days of Ballmer and Gates. While Microsoft certainly has as big focus on the corporate world, its open source portfolio is bigger by the day. In many ways pigs are flying.
Re: (Score:1)
The Microsoft of today is not the same Microsoft as in the days of Ballmer and Gates
I'd prefer not to risk it.
Re: oh yeah, i always celebreate when... (Score:2)
Pony up the money, then. Or you're not risking anything.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a private small software development company. It seems cheaper and more secure to outsource your repositories than managing the backups yourself.
I don't see why you'd trust GitHub more than Atlassian but less than Microsoft, for mishandling your private code. I can't remember any scandal of Microsoft screwing with ei
Re: (Score:2)
In many ways pigs are flying.
Better than chairs I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Blah, blah, blah.
We're still talking about the same Microsoft which tried to trick users into "upgrading" to Windows 10, tried to force it on them and continuously forces updates, "upgrades", reboots and resets your privacy settings at every opportunity.
Microsoft hasn't changed, it's incapable of changing, and you're a shill who are willfully blind to it. Sit down and have a cup of STFU.
Re:oh yeah, i always celebreate when... (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft still demands pay from linux and android for "stolen" microsoft code and they are getting paid per sold unit
Re: (Score:1)
I like how you put Ballmer first, William is going berserk over that ordering!
But having said that, you do know that Gates is still active in MS (dunno about Ballmer,
but every major decision made has Gates blessing before it can proceed), right? So I
don't know if I trust Bill & Co. with sensitive source code (the private repos are what he's
after) since so many companies have hosted their stuff on github.
MS hasn't changed; just become slier...
CAP === 'confine'
trust, but verify (and chalk a precise cicle) (Score:3)
Sure. And the Microsoft of tomorrow is not necessarily the Microsoft of today. Easy come, easy go.
Which is why Microsoft should get busy providing an explicit list of intentions concerning their operation of GitHub, providing as many bullets as possible about things that define their tenure as the presumptive "good" Microsoft: will dos and won't dos.
If the list doesn't allow one to finish the sentence "you'll know we've gon
Re:oh yeah, i always celebreate when... (Score:5, Informative)
I can appreciate your concern, since the recent history with Skype and some other acquisitions left a bit of a bad taste, but this article from ArsTechnica suggests that Microsoft might have been the best option:
https://arstechnica.com/gadget... [arstechnica.com]
The Microsoft of today is not the same Microsoft as in the days of Ballmer and Gates. While Microsoft certainly has as big focus on the corporate world, its open source portfolio is bigger by the day. In many ways pigs are flying.
Are you not aware that Microsoft is still currently "licensing" software patents on devices distributed with the Linux kernel?
Yes... It goes like this... You build a new device and start distributing it with the Linux kernel installed.
Microsoft approaches you and says your device violates 200+ Microsoft software patents because it runs Linux.
You now have to pay Microsoft money for a software patent license for every device you distribute because you are building and distributing devices that include the Linux kernel which they say violates their software patents.
It's a very sleazy extortion scheme designed to stifle Linux and open source in the marketplace.
Re: (Score:2)
I can appreciate your concern, since the recent history with Skype and some other acquisitions left a bit of a bad taste, but this article from ArsTechnica suggests that Microsoft might have been the best option:
I understand that, but in the 90's Windows 3.1 was considered "the best option" for an operating system. Fortunately a lot of people didn't consider it an adequate option and chose not to settle.
The Microsoft of today is not the same Microsoft as in the days of Ballmer and Gates.
There are a few running memes over the history of Microsoft. One I never not tired of is someone popping up to assure the world that today's Microsoft is not same Microsoft that did all the bad things that earned them their unpleasant reputation. I don't pay enough attention to know if they are the same people w
Re: (Score:1)
The Microsoft of today is not the same Microsoft as in the days of Ballmer and Gates.
Bullshit, they're exactly the same.
Just cast your mind back to the roll out of Windows 10 and just how hard they were trying to ram it down peoples throats. As soon as people found a way to block it MS came out with a new method to force it on users.
I have zero faith in MS, they will just fuck Github up just like every other aquisition they've made.
Already moved my stuff off Github, not gonna wait for the inevitable "Our T&C's have changed, click here to see how we've grabbed your data"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Microsoft of today is not the same Microsoft as in the days of Ballmer and Gates.
The Nazi Party of today is not the same Nazi Party as in the days of Himmler and Hitler.
The Nazi Party has announced plans to buy Kibbutzes and install new shower plumbing there for free.
Microsoft tried for years to kill Linux and Open Source. They have realized they can't achieve that any more.
So they want to control Open Source.
That's why they bought GitHub . . . for control . . .
Re: (Score:2)
So they want to control Open Source.
Please explain exactly how do you control open source when, by definition, opening a software means giving up the control over it.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Linux Foundation" has a history of promoting things that are bad for Linux users, though not necessarily for Linux companies.
No really Guyz (Score:1)
We have make 20B a year selling closed-source software because we care so much about open-source software!
Nothing to see here, move along.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
I'll just leave this here...
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/ [linuxfoundation.org]
You don't need to.
In his blog post, Jim Zemlin, writes "Microsoft has become a top contributor to Linux and Kubernetes, [...], and they are backers of The Linux Foundation, [...]" (emphasis mine)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, I was wondering why the Linux Foundation was licking the ass of MS. Now I know.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft needs to be expelled from the Linux Foundation.
Re: (Score:1)
How is it corruption when a business profitably sells itself to another business? Making money, and even being acquired by anther company, is generally considered to be the primary purpose of most businesses. And for all it's community service, Github is still a business.
Re: (Score:2)
Github is still a business.
This is what I find troubling. GitHub was too significant to have been a business. It should have been a foundation. GitHub's being sold reminds me of how all these small, holistic natural products companies start and and eventually end up getting swallowed by the same 3 or 4 enormous conglomerates, before their quality declines and they become part of the same, evil globooligarchistic ecorapacious system.
And I will never trust nor like Microsoft, nor more than I like war criminals regardless of how much
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, you're welcome to spend your own time and money creating a foundation to do the same thing - I'd certainly prefer a stable foundation to a business, and I'm sure there would be no shortage of people willing to jump on board, once it was up and running.
But that foundation (so far as I know) doesn't exist. Should we then ban businesses from offering such valuable services? Or require them to divest themselves of the services to a non-profit foundation when they become culturally significant? Neither o
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla, Apache, or Eclipse are ones that come to mind. I think even IntelliJ taking over would have been a lot better. One hopes that they will jump in and set up a source code repository/change control system even better than GitHub.
I will never like Microsoft. As I said in another comment, no amount of time passing will ever make a war criminal less guilty and more likeable.
That's an interesting affirmation.. (Score:1)
"we are buying GitHub because we believe in the importance of developers".
This means they will use it basically to headhunt and get all the worthy developers before anyone else, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Could be a case of "why not both?" as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
LinkedIn (owned by Microsoft) is already creepy and gross. Already cancelled my GitHub account. If that is what it means to use my talent to "participate" in the economy I refuse. Piss on Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Big business has eaten FOSS (Score:5, Insightful)
The original Linux ideals are being lost to corporate money.
Re:Big business has eaten FOSS (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Past performance is an indicator of what? (Score:1, Interesting)
Stac: why ahould I bemoan that a company that produced a kludge to compress data on my hard drive found their technology absorbed into DOS so that I could use it for free?
OS/2: IBM tried to take back what they had given away for free (the open PC arcitecture) and failed because Microsoft wouldn't partner with them to do so.
Those are just the oldest two. Microsoft also stopped Netscap from turning the web into something they owned with their propritary Netscape web servers.
There is a black and white checkere
Re: Past performance is an indicator of what? (Score:1)
Yeah, uh, no.
Any more throwaways to contribute?
Re: (Score:2)
Their goal (Score:5, Interesting)
Their goal is to make Microsoft Windows the #1 developer platform, that's the reason why they added the Linux subsystem. At the same time, they make dual booting harder, expect there to be more problems to come with Windows updates if you're dual booting. The strategy is obvious, they've realized that Linux needs to be embraced & distinguished or at least controlled by sneaking more and more Microsoft stuff into the Linux ecosystem. They will follow the same strategy that Google managed to pull off with Android - overtly supporting free software and open source, but covertly making sure you dominate the field and using tricks and money to prevent successful forking. Can you take an arbitrary smartphone and install your own compilation of the latest Android on it? Right, you can't. The same may happen with Linux. Don't be surprised if Microsoft becomes a major contributor soon. Maybe they even try a 'Windows compatible' distro of GNU/Linux soon. At the same time, they sell their user's data, because they want to become an adware business like Google. Purchasing Github is a major step into this direction.
Why all this? It's a long-term strategy. Microsoft has always been able to deal with Apple, because Apple is not really a software company, but they rightly fear of losing the desktop market entirely. Since the phone thing didn't work out well, they're now trying to make sure to continue the desktop market and want to become the HUB for developers. Apart from that, there is only high end gaming (dwindling market), pro audio (shared with Apple), and Microsoft Office left for them before they would die. Surely at least they'd like to keep the developers, who went to buy Apple hardware in droves, because it allows you to develop for all operating systems on one crappy, overprized machine.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft's history is a lot more malign that that. They have a history of actively working to break the competition. For one example, look into the standardization of word processor file formats.
Re: Their goal (Score:1)
Why the hell would anybody dual boot? All that means is having to reboot all the time. It means having part of the software you use unavailable at any time. Run the alternate oses you need infrequently out of VMs. For your desktop, get a good KVM and multiple boxes.
Dual boot is the kind of thing I thought had died out long ago.
Re: (Score:3)
The future is now... (Score:4, Interesting)
Gosh....
It's corporate moves and compromises like this which have made me leave the IT business to focus on Industrial programming.
IT cannot remain relevant if it becomes a monolith. Open source, as a corporate walled garden, is not going to provide the platform for people to be at liberty with their own computing and data.
It's over folks. There are no more garages.
Re: (Score:1)
Gosh....
It's corporate moves and compromises like this which have made me leave the IT business to focus on Industrial programming.
IT cannot remain relevant if it becomes a monolith. Open source, as a corporate walled garden, is not going to provide the platform for people to be at liberty with their own computing and data.
It's over folks. There are no more garages.
Through miracles of science, modern open source software still comes with that made in a garage look and feel, rustic usability, and no guarantees to ever work. Fewer man pages, the ones you get will not be accurate, and what’s an exit code? Oh and docker docker kubernetes because basically everything sucked about managing software on Linux and we don’t admit it till a half assed replacement comes, and then we’re stuck with half assed replacement.
In other words the same old crap I tinker
MS and LinkedIn will datamine GitHub (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
They will harvest Githib looking for patent infringements and and use that information to enrich their lawyers.
Upcoming "improvements" to GitHub by MicroSoft (Score:5, Interesting)
- registering a live.com account (with personal information) becomes mandatory to use github
- github experience becomes "optimized for Edge", and somehow more sluggish for all other browsers
- use of GVFS becomes mandatory. Complete decentralized copies of hosted repositories is first discouraged, later made impossible
- web service starts to use binary, Windows-only extensions, later some features are no longer available without
- MicroSoft starts removing projects that contradict their business models or just generally displease them
- MicroSoft requires developers to utilize MicroSoft-issued certificates to sign their commits. First certificates are free, later they start to cost per month.
- MicroSoft sells NSA and other paying customers the service to implant back-doors in the sources hosted at github - of course "signed" with the seemingly correct developer certificate.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Control (Score:1)
The company operating Github was languishing. The last thing we need would be for Oracle to swallow it up, or any of the other deep pockets players (Amazon, Apple, Google) to take it over. Microsoft has been a developer-centered company since the beginning, when they were mostly a language interprwter/compiler biz.
They don't hustle advertising, and they don't sell overpriced dongle hardware required to use their products.
But there's a certain amount of anti-M$ insanity that will always have to be dealt wit
Blink Twice (Score:1)
Bad Idea! (Score:2)
Microsoft controlling GitHub is terrible, because Microsoft is terrible! We should all move our repositories over to GitLab. GitLab is hosted on Azure, they're so much nicer and more trustworthy than Microsoft!
Reality Check (Score:1)
Time to move to Gitlab? (Score:1)
Believe it when u see it... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You see, he used bing and it didn't say anything about the linux foundation. Just something about welcoming our new overlord.