Yeah, I fully expect them to implement a secure VPN. I don't trust them not to have backdoors (actual, rotating security holes, or otherwise) at each endpoint. They want access to your data, they have a vested interest in assuring others don't get it without going through them.
Even MGVFS or MSGVFS would work - as long as the acronym has their branding on it it's pretty safe it won't be used already. That would allow them to keep the bulk of their code unchanged (since the "Microsoft" part is implicit if not directly called out) without disrupting user support for either system (e.g. they could still call it the Microsoft Git Virtual File System - similar to how they used T-SQL to differentiate from SQL.) Organizational prefixes are pretty standard across the industry.
I'm not sure you've actually seen that video. The quote isn't famous because it showed Balmer "got" developers, it's famous because it showed Balmer being a dim witted ape hopping around stage flailing his arms.
So you agree with stiffing free speech? Free speech which alerts consumers to corrupt corporations spying on them at that? You, you are a prime example of eurotrash.
You mean $7.5B. Most likely by leveraging GitHub to crush the open source community (modifying the EULA to grant themselves the ability to copy/paste into proprietary software, or even patent rights or coownership, tracking what open source projects to target/disrupt, etc.) They're masters at two things: marketing and crushing the little guy. Their tactics are numerous.
I don't think Microsoft wants GitHub to turn a profit directly. I think they want it to add a line to the EULA granting them rights to use any code published to it in closed source projects and/or to have dual ownership or outright patent rights to it. If only 10% of the open source project leaders accidentally clicked "I accept" they would basically have the legal authority to shutter the entire open source industry overnight.
GitLab is better than GitHub IMO. My preferred setup is internal GitLab (personal projects, proprietary, open source,) with a TeamCity VCS watcher triggered build configuration to upload projects I want to publish to GitHub. As useful as GitHub is, it's still a hosted solution I have no actual control over, so trusting it as a primary repo for anything I work on or for anything I want to keep private is just a common sense "No."
To be honest they'd probably be better rebranind sourceforge and just sticking a landing page on the sourceforge site itself saying "we're no longer evil as we've been acquired by another company and this is our new site" with a link to it. Maybe some forwarders for the individual project pages so links via traffic don't break. Even after Whipslash's comments I can't scrub the association between "sourceforge" and "vile, dirty, putrid" from my mind that easily (and I really am trying.)
Git has a steep learning curve but it's pretty great when you actually embrace the philosophy of it. I don't have a link to it handy but Linus did a brief at a Google conference of some kind one time that goes into the philosophy really well, that's what made git click for me and I haven't gone back to subversion since (though unfortunately still have to use VSO for work.) The biggest issue with git is that it's so fundamentally different in principle and in practice from other version control systems that you really just have to give up the concepts that you are familiar with in others to use it successfully. The one thing it really lacks is great submodule support, because doing things like updating all the submodules referenced by the project requires a line of pseudocode/script, and there's no way to make a pointer to the head version of a submodule like you would naturally get from a massive source tree in subversion.
Trademarks are just a way to muscle smaller entities out like patents. To keep up with trademarks and the legal issues around them you need a team of lawyers.
Just checked it out and I stand by the shit interface part, but my suggestions follow if you are interested:
Inline ads are bullshit, if it's going to be ad-driven the scam the advertisers, not the users. If I have to think about what is an ad vs what isn't without just letting my brain filter it out behind the scenes it's too much of a distraction to use the site.
WAY too much wasted space - GitHub is similar in some ways with their narrow screen, but SourceForge seems to have MASSIVE blocks for projects when browsing them - to the point only a few fit on the screen at a time. Developers tend to despise wasted space a lot more than your typical user, Bootstrap is not your friend here.
Issue tracking was perfect in GitHub (arguably the one thing they got perfect) - at a glance the number of issues that are open should be visible on the project pages so you don't have to drill down when comparing different projects for cues on how well they are maintained (same for source tree.)
The readme-from-source aspect of GitHub was a serious win - allowing people to not have to dick around on GitHub when posting or revising projects there, definitely worth copying.
Well, then I apologize. Sourceforge was the source of the only malware infection any computer I've ever owned has had, so I was a bit put off by it and stopped using the site altogether. Even the old 90's warez sites were never that bad.
Well, then I apologize. Sourceforge was the source of the only malware infection any computer I've ever owned has had, so I was a bit put off by it and stopped using the site altogether. Even the old 90's warez sites were never that bad.
Perhaps GitHub can have some of its cost structures reduced by riding on Microsoft's coattails. Perhaps there's some breakthrough that Microsoft can see with them, although I don't think there's a tremendous synergy there. The basic model has been there before (SourceForge), and it could technically be duplicated again by someone else. Many developers/repos will simply bail due to Microsoft's history of changing business terms. Heck, they rolled "Teams" out which is supposed to compete with Slack.
Perhaps Microsoft modifies the EULA to allow themselves to patent and use without attribution any open source code posted to GitHub. Oh wait, that's exactly what this is and not any of the things you said.
It's reasonable for them to plug it, it's still not something any sane person would switch to. They bundle spyware with their installers and are generally unuseably slow with a shit interface.
This is obviously a way to lock-in corporate revenue and boot the little guys out.
It's probably a lot more nefarious than that. All they have to do is add a sentence to the EULA granting them rights to the code posted on the platform and 99% of the projects there will blindly hit accept before realizing it.
This isn't even AI. They just trained an image recognition algorithm on gore then showed it non-gore which was only capable of being categorized as gore. The people funding this stuff should be ashamed of themselves, they got duped.
I honestly thought it was a joke when I saw the news about this," the assemblyman said in a statement at the time. "This product, in the wake of California's deadliest wildfire year in state history, is incredibly insensitive, dangerous, and most definitely not funny.
Maybe if the commies in Commifornia gave up communism they wouldn't have to deal with Hellfire and mockery.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I fully expect them to implement a secure VPN. I don't trust them not to have backdoors (actual, rotating security holes, or otherwise) at each endpoint. They want access to your data, they have a vested interest in assuring others don't get it without going through them.
Even MGVFS or MSGVFS would work - as long as the acronym has their branding on it it's pretty safe it won't be used already. That would allow them to keep the bulk of their code unchanged (since the "Microsoft" part is implicit if not directly called out) without disrupting user support for either system (e.g. they could still call it the Microsoft Git Virtual File System - similar to how they used T-SQL to differentiate from SQL.) Organizational prefixes are pretty standard across the industry.
I for one welcome HFNW (Hitler Filed No Wrong.)
I'm not sure you've actually seen that video. The quote isn't famous because it showed Balmer "got" developers, it's famous because it showed Balmer being a dim witted ape hopping around stage flailing his arms.
So you agree with stiffing free speech? Free speech which alerts consumers to corrupt corporations spying on them at that? You, you are a prime example of eurotrash.
lol, since when? This is still the American internet, tell that Eurotrash waste of space to stop waiving his micropenis around.
It's tough to have a positive brand image when your fortune exists due to muscling out farmers and starving Argentina for the lulz.
iOS 13: The Wrath of Jobs' Necrotic Cock.
You mean $7.5B. Most likely by leveraging GitHub to crush the open source community (modifying the EULA to grant themselves the ability to copy/paste into proprietary software, or even patent rights or coownership, tracking what open source projects to target/disrupt, etc.) They're masters at two things: marketing and crushing the little guy. Their tactics are numerous.
Closing my GitHub accounts and projects now.
I don't think Microsoft wants GitHub to turn a profit directly. I think they want it to add a line to the EULA granting them rights to use any code published to it in closed source projects and/or to have dual ownership or outright patent rights to it. If only 10% of the open source project leaders accidentally clicked "I accept" they would basically have the legal authority to shutter the entire open source industry overnight.
GitLab is better than GitHub IMO. My preferred setup is internal GitLab (personal projects, proprietary, open source,) with a TeamCity VCS watcher triggered build configuration to upload projects I want to publish to GitHub. As useful as GitHub is, it's still a hosted solution I have no actual control over, so trusting it as a primary repo for anything I work on or for anything I want to keep private is just a common sense "No."
Now we're getting lumped in with Reddit? What Hell?
To be honest they'd probably be better rebranind sourceforge and just sticking a landing page on the sourceforge site itself saying "we're no longer evil as we've been acquired by another company and this is our new site" with a link to it. Maybe some forwarders for the individual project pages so links via traffic don't break. Even after Whipslash's comments I can't scrub the association between "sourceforge" and "vile, dirty, putrid" from my mind that easily (and I really am trying.)
Git has a steep learning curve but it's pretty great when you actually embrace the philosophy of it. I don't have a link to it handy but Linus did a brief at a Google conference of some kind one time that goes into the philosophy really well, that's what made git click for me and I haven't gone back to subversion since (though unfortunately still have to use VSO for work.) The biggest issue with git is that it's so fundamentally different in principle and in practice from other version control systems that you really just have to give up the concepts that you are familiar with in others to use it successfully. The one thing it really lacks is great submodule support, because doing things like updating all the submodules referenced by the project requires a line of pseudocode/script, and there's no way to make a pointer to the head version of a submodule like you would naturally get from a massive source tree in subversion.
Trademarks are just a way to muscle smaller entities out like patents. To keep up with trademarks and the legal issues around them you need a team of lawyers.
Well, then I apologize. Sourceforge was the source of the only malware infection any computer I've ever owned has had, so I was a bit put off by it and stopped using the site altogether. Even the old 90's warez sites were never that bad.
Well, then I apologize. Sourceforge was the source of the only malware infection any computer I've ever owned has had, so I was a bit put off by it and stopped using the site altogether. Even the old 90's warez sites were never that bad.
Perhaps GitHub can have some of its cost structures reduced by riding on Microsoft's coattails. Perhaps there's some breakthrough that Microsoft can see with them, although I don't think there's a tremendous synergy there. The basic model has been there before (SourceForge), and it could technically be duplicated again by someone else. Many developers/repos will simply bail due to Microsoft's history of changing business terms. Heck, they rolled "Teams" out which is supposed to compete with Slack.
Perhaps Microsoft modifies the EULA to allow themselves to patent and use without attribution any open source code posted to GitHub. Oh wait, that's exactly what this is and not any of the things you said.
It's reasonable for them to plug it, it's still not something any sane person would switch to. They bundle spyware with their installers and are generally unuseably slow with a shit interface.
This is obviously a way to lock-in corporate revenue and boot the little guys out.
It's probably a lot more nefarious than that. All they have to do is add a sentence to the EULA granting them rights to the code posted on the platform and 99% of the projects there will blindly hit accept before realizing it.
They bundle installers with spyware and are generally slow and unusable. We need an actual alternative to GitHub now.
This isn't even AI. They just trained an image recognition algorithm on gore then showed it non-gore which was only capable of being categorized as gore. The people funding this stuff should be ashamed of themselves, they got duped.
I honestly thought it was a joke when I saw the news about this," the assemblyman said in a statement at the time. "This product, in the wake of California's deadliest wildfire year in state history, is incredibly insensitive, dangerous, and most definitely not funny.
Maybe if the commies in Commifornia gave up communism they wouldn't have to deal with Hellfire and mockery.