Microsoft's Interest In Buying GitHub Draws Backlash From Developers

The supposed acquisition of popular code repository GitHub by Microsoft has drawn an unprecedented backlash from the developer community. Over the weekend, after Bloomberg reported that the two companies could make the announcement as soon as Monday, hundreds of developers took to forums and social media to express their disappointment, with many saying that they would be leaving the platform if the deal goes through.

So why so much outrage? In a conversation with Slashdot, software developer and student Sean said that he believes a deal of such capacity would be bad for the open source community. "They've shown time and time again that they can't be trusted," he said. Sean and many other believe that Microsoft would eventually start telemetry program on the code repository. "Aside from Microsoft not being trustworthy to the open source community, I'm sure they'll add tracking and possibly even ads to all the sites within GitHub. As well as possibly use it to push LinkedIn (which they own)," he said. Ryan Hoover, the founder of ProductHunt, wrote on Sunday, "Anecdotally, the developer community is very unapproving of this move. I'm curious how Microsoft manages this and how GitHub changes (or doesn't change)." Even as Microsoft has "embraced" the open source community in the recent years (under the leadership of Mr. Nadella), for many developers, it will take time -- if at all -- to forget the company's past closed-ecosystem approach. Just this weekend, a developer accused Microsoft of stealing his code.

A petition that seeks to "stop Microsoft from buying Github" had garnered support from more than 400 developers. Prominent developer Andre Staltz said, "If you're still optimistic about the Microsoft-GitHub acquisition, consider this: They didn't ask your opinion not even a single bit, even though it was primarily your commits, stars, and repositories which made GH become a valuable platform." More importantly, if the comments left on Slashdot, Reddit, and HackerNews, places that overwhelmingly count developers and other IT industry experts among their audience, are anything to go by, Microsoft better has a good plan on how it intends to operate GitHub after the buyout. Security reporter Catalin Cimpanu said, "LinkedIn has turned into a slow-loading junk after the Microsoft acquisition. I can only imagine what awaits GitHub." On his part, Mat Velloso, who is technical advisor to CTO at Microsoft, said, "I don't think people understand how many of us at Microsoft love GitHub to the bottom of our hearts. If anybody decided to mess with that community, there would be a riot to say the least."

Jacques Mattheij: Companies that are too big to fail and that lose money are a dangerous combination, people have warned about GitHub becoming as large as it did as problematic because it concentrates too much of the power to make or break the open source world in a single entity, moreso because there were valid questions about GitHubs financial viability. The model that GitHub has -- sell their services to closed source companies but provide the service for free for open source groups -- is only a good one if the closed source companies bring in enough funds to sustain the model. Some sort of solution should have been found -- preferably in collaboration with the community -- not an 'exit' to one of the biggest sharks in the tank. So, here is what is wrong with this deal and why anybody active in the open source community should be upset that Microsoft is going to be the steward of this large body of code. For starters, Microsoft has a very long history of abusing its position vis-a-vis open source and other companies. I'm sure you'll be able to tell I'm a cranky old guy by looking up the dates to some of these references, but 'new boss, same as the old boss' applies as far as I'm concerned. Yes, the new boss is a nicer guy but it's the same corporate entity. Update: It's official. Microsoft has acquired GitHub for a whopping sum of $7.5B.

Comments

Trust

[religionofpeas]

If you require trust, you shouldn't have used GitHub in the first place.

Re:Trust

[jellomizer]

As a non-hater of all things Microsoft. Microsoft acquiring Git Hub is concerning for much different reasons.

1. If Git hub doesn’t bring in the money a company like Microsoft will just kill it.

2. Like Skype and linked in There will be changes to bring it into its ecosystem. Preferring updates to its platforms and delaying others.

3. How much tolerance will it have for competing/illegal products. Due to the complexity of licensing rules it is easy to break a license when developing something. This may not make it to the final release version as an audit would show you that these parts are in violation. But MS is protective of its IP so could the project of some teen learning how to code something more complex be part of a lawsuit from an MS level check of IP violations?

This would be the same for Apple, Google, Bank of America, GE...

Re:Trust

[religionofpeas]

If Git hub doesn’t bring in the money a company like Microsoft will just kill it

If it doesn't bring money, it's doomed anyway. Nobody's going to run servers for charity.

Re:Trust

[gbjbaanb]

I doubt they have bought githubto save on the enterprise plans they were using.

That $7.5bn will be to integrate LinkedIn so they can get even more jobs and code data, link your accounts and then they can sell advertising to you (or recruitment agents) to hassle you constantly to get a new job.

I have no doubt github will continue to work as before, but I imagine it'll get tarnished round the edges with commercialised services.

the only good thing would be if VSTS get chucked in favour of a github-based connection instead!

I dislike Microsoft, too, but...

[phantomfive]

When I participate in developer forums, I find they tend to become better when the emotional, irrational, outraged developers leave. I remember when there was a "boycott slashdot" week over beta. When those people left, it was like a breath of fresh air. The average quality of comment went up (and I say that as someone who disliked beta). Having an emotional attachment to a platform, company, or website is irrational by definition.

Re:I dislike Microsoft, too, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.

Companies have this thing called "culture". FFS, they even named the street where their HQ is situated the "One Microsoft way". Geddit? It's in their genes, or would be if they had any.

Changing a company is not anyway near as easy as changing the people who make "arsehole decisions". If for no other reason that there is a culture of "making arsehole decisions". Leaders who are known for this kind of behaviour attract similar people and repel people with different values which limits the selection. It's also far from uncommon for leaders to "groom" their successors and eject people who doesn't "fit in".

Add to that fact that even if you change the people at the top, there is the usual push back from below, where "we have always done things this way", etc ad nauseam.

Considering all that, an the collective baggage they have, from their early DOS shenanigans, all the way up to their current day resetting your privacy settings on updates and updategate, I'd say they have one hell of a hill to climb if they want to be considered trustworthy. They haven't even started!

To paraphrase Norman Schwarzkopf Jr., "they are still serving the same soup but with a slightly different recipe".

It's still disgusting to anyone with anything resembling taste.

Re:I dislike Microsoft, too, but...

[fafalone]

Anyone who can look at all the issues surrounding Windows 10, tricking people into upgrading, outright forcing upgrading, forcing updates, forcing reboots, forcing telemetry even on Enterprise, evading hosts file and firewalls rules blocking it, resetting settings, and claim that their abhorrent behavior is all in the past, is out of their damn mind. They've never worked harder at abusing their userbase.

Re:I understand just fine, thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet they loved Skype too. I did, until they bought it and decided to turn it just as bad as MSN Messenger was before it was outcompeted by Skype.

Aren't you overselling

[aepervius]

Yes MS from 2018 is not MS from 1998, but mostly due to competition, not on their own accord. Proof of that is the shenanigan they still do in the amrket they are more or less de facto monopolist : the OS. Furthermore point 1 cn be painted in a dimmer light as "embrace and extend then extinguish" which has always been their toolbox, as for point 8 i am sorry, what OEM license competition ?

Re:Bunch of garbage

[xonen]

1. Microsoft would open source its Java competitor under better terms than Java...

Only to kill the Mono project consequently

2. Would fully adopt (as much as anyone other than Mozilla is) open web standards from the browser to all corporate products...

Guess you didn't try Edge yet..

3. Add a Linux compatibility layer...

Which is widely frowned upon. And while i use it regularly, i also think it's one of the E's in EEE.

4. Port Office to a platform like Android...

Only after all MS phone projects ended as a disaster. Mostly because they couldn't even keep it compatible with itself.

5. Be the 5th largest contributor to the Linux kernel...

Mostly for hypervisor stuff and other stuff related to compatibility with (closed) MS software. Meanwhile, NTFS support still suffers.

6. Enthusiastically sell cloud services based on Linux...

Because the customers must choose Microsoft above all. They can always switch to Windows at a later stage.

7. Microsoft would offer more innovative desktops than Apple...

Guess you didn't upgrade to windows 10 yet... Which basically feels like a downgrade. But is forced upon users because of compatibility and ending support for older windows versions. I guess it sort-of works, but nothing new or fancy that pleases the customers, if any, only confuses the hell out of the elderly user base.

8. Microsoft would compete for OEM licenses on price and merits, not contractual extortion...

I can't believe you seriously said that. OEM's have no choice but to get strangled by MS.

We'd have called you a crackhead. Not a dreamer, but a crackhead because only a crackhead would think up a future like that as being plausible. Yet... that's where we're at in 2018

Basically you're a crackhead (your words) if you believe any of the claims you made. Especially if you think those claims are sincere and not only serve to increase their profit margins.

I rather keep distrusting MS until proven beyond doubt that they can be trusted, than the other way around and be cheated upon again for the zillionth time since 1992.