Slashdot Mirror
Linux Foundation Celebrates Microsoft's GitHub Acquisition (theverge.com)
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."
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".
https://www.linuxfoundation.or...
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...
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.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
A leopard can not change it spots. Just two months ago I was using Microsoft chat to find out about installing Windows for the first time in 15 years. I was using FF and Ubuntu, and the chat window was broken, the input line covered the bottom of the chat history. so I had to keep hitting enter, enter so that I could see the last thing typed. Always just a little broken for not MS systems. The Linux foundation function is to support big business not the small developer or hacker. When money talks. the Linux Foundation bends over and takes it.
The original Linux ideals are being lost to corporate money.
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.
I don't agree with the analysis in the parent comment.
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. 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 still demands pay from linux and android for "stolen" microsoft code and they are getting paid per sold unit
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...
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.