Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
git really doesn't need a hub. So sure, it's convenient, and it became the FOSS-hipster thing to do. Now big bad redmond comes along and buys it all up. Just like they bought up linkedin. Now all your employment history is theirs to do with as they please. Now all your code is theirs to do with as they please, too.
Why did you give it to some 'merkin company in the first place? Just for the convenience? Riddle me this, please.
Yes, I know "embrace, extend, exquingish" is their track-record. But google (eg. deja news) is no longer even pretending to "don't be evil", and yet all y'all are still clinging to their products and services. Why not big bad and wrong, evil redmond?
I know why I avoid redmond whenever and wherever I can. I never had a linkedin account nor a github account. But why the indignation now? Do explain please. Anybody? What makes this one evil company so special that you won't trust them with your code, but you certainly would some random other company? What if google had bought up github? SAP? IBM? Yahoo? Sony?
I like how you try to portrait people who absolutely hate Microsoft as "emotional and irrational". Hating Microsoft is rational. It's a sign that you've been keeping up. Fuck, if you had behaved in real life the way Microsoft has, you'd have lost your teeth several times over, and be in prison for the rest of your life.
No, "phantomfive", there is nothing irrational about hating Microsoft. The irrational one is you, who are defending a known criminal, toxic and destructive entity and spit on their victims and those who actually remembers their crimes.
Just go fuck yourself, you retarded, smug shill.
Github is far too dominant in the online source code repository market. If this causes some people to leave and join other repositories or set up new competitors, that is a good thing.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Most of the complaining about Microsoft evil and problems are issues that happened 20 years ago.
I am not saying Microsoft is the good company we all should love. But most of the complaints about Microsoft are with resolved issue that were fixed for over a decade.
So yes I would agree with emotional outrage without fact expresses most Microsoft hate. I would say that applies for hate towards most anything.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It's also not under U.S. jurisdiction, being based in Europe. These days that's something you need to consider.
Trust is not binary.
I trust my barber to cut my hair but I'll take her financial advice with a pinch of salt.
I trust Github enough to invest time in their free service.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Although they get some revenue from paid plans (which offer features like private repositories, server-side hooks, and other useful things), they've never been profitable. Like so many startups, they keep the lights on by burning investor money while they wait to be acquired.
I've worked for a company like this, and the people who got screwed the most were the employee shareholders. The VCs with their preferential shares divided up the money from the sale, and there was nothing left for the employees who actually believed in the company and put their own money into it. I'd already left by then, but it was a better place to work after the buy-out, as they could actually afford to pay something like market rates for developers. Before the buy-out, cash was always too tight, so everyone was underpaid and no-one got pay rises.
You worked for a shit startup that always intended to screw you. What happens in an honest company is that the buyout price is stated in terms of $/share. Any options you have automatically vest, and you get a lump sum (minus taxes) for your shares multiplied by the share price. You literally can't have a situation where there isn't money for the employees.
You are already in that position, the moment you host on a 3rd-party's servers. MS has decades of experience keeping NDAs and not leaking source code of customers. Github has essentially been lucky.
Right, I don't see how MS is a bad guy in the sense that Comcast is a bad guy. Maybe that's just me, I realize it's an unpopular opinion around here. And FTR I use Linux and OSX about as much as I use Windows these days. I just don't see the great villainy that everyone else does.