Microsoft to acquire GitHub code repository

[HEXUS]

Microsoft is the top contributor to the site, used by Apple, Google, IBM and many others.

Read more.

[afiretruck]

This is... somewhat concerning, but hopefully an example of Microsoft's newfound commitment to opensource software development.

I remain skeptical, given that the new opensource-supporting MS is a result of their current CEO's directive and that this could reverse with the next CEO, but will be more than happy to be proven wrong.

[aidanjt]

Nope, nope, nope. *Far* too much hinges on GitHub to allow it to be sold off to a bad actor like Microsoft. If they want to prove their F/OSS creds, they can cut their teeth on something that's important to them, but not to everyone else. Or better yet, contribute code to Samba and other projects that improves interoperability between *NIX machines and Windows so everyone wins.

[Wozza63]

I certainly intend to move all of my repositories to another location. Either GitLab or something hosted locally.

[DanceswithUnix]

Or better yet, contribute code to Samba and other projects that improves interoperability between *NIX machines and Windows so everyone wins.

To be fair, I believe they do at least in terms of help and testing.

But otherwise, I imagine lots of companies will be looking to move their code elsewhere from lack of trust and I wouldn't blame them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrac...and_extinguish

[aidanjt]

To be fair, I believe they do at least in terms of help and testing.

Not nearly enough, protocol/API documentation practically needs to be dragged out of them, and it never comes before a new OS release. As a result, Samba & Co. are *always* playing catchup.

[Glyce]

I certainly intend to move all of my repositories to another location. Either GitLab or something hosted locally.

I've been using self hosted Gitlab for about 6 years and its great. The omnibus packages are really easy to install and maintain, updated with apt-get and I use Gitlab's backup system to export the database and configs and then rsync it to another disc and...

Anyway, its great.

[deepblue08]

I can't see how MS or whoever else can change the fact that I can share my code publicly. As long as I can commit my code for free I will keep using it, and I don't see that changing. They know that there are so many free Git alternative implementations out there already.

[mtyson]

UPDATE:

A GitHub blog post, A bright future for GitHub, has confirmed the US$7.5 billion deal with Microsoft.
https://blog.github.com/2018-06-04-github-microsoft/

[johnroe]

So I was just looking at all the companies acquired. Microsoft say they will invest and let the companies operate independent, but what is the reality. Is it capitalism consuming everything, or are they allowing these smaller companies to develop.

It's already been updated https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Inve...n-history.aspx

[Corky34]

I can't see how MS or whoever else can change the fact that I can share my code publicly. As long as I can commit my code for free I will keep using it, and I don't see that changing. They know that there are so many free Git alternative implementations out there already.

I don't think it's so much about the public sharing of code, it's probably more about who owns the code, i wouldn't put it past Microsoft (or any multinational) to change the T&C's at some point in the future to say their the legal owner of anything uploaded.

[TheAnimus]

I don't think it's so much about the public sharing of code, it's probably more about who owns the code, i wouldn't put it past Microsoft (or any multinational) to change the T&C's at some point in the future to say their the legal owner of anything uploaded.

Probably not under Nadella. This is also a big promotion for the pro-open source elements of the firm.

Microsoft isn't a single unified entity, there are some huge pro open source elements (.Net Core) and some that frankly don't like it at all (Windows Core).

This will be another sign of the shift in balance of power that way.

[peterb]

Hmm, there are at least five reasons Microsoft might want to acquire a company:

To shut down a competitor to stop it doing something they (MS) already do
To acquire the IP of a company to incorporate into their own product
To acquire something they don't do because it is profitable and they think they can add value to it (eg Skype)
To gain access to a user base to increase sals of their existing products
For anything not covered by the above! (I have never really understood why tey bught linkedIn - unless they thought somehow they thought it would compete with FB) unless it is to grow it and then sell it on at a profit later.

But a company has to grow to add shareholder value (shareholders are the owners and that is to whom Microsoft are accountable) so acquisitions can be a way of growing turnover and profitability.

[spacein_vader]

I don't think it's so much about the public sharing of code, it's probably more about who owns the code, i wouldn't put it past Microsoft (or any multinational) to change the T&C's at some point in the future to say their the legal owner of anything uploaded.

Other than it being massively illegal to do so? If I put some code on GitHub under a GPL licence nobody but me has the legal power to alter that licence or its ownership.

The worst they could do would be to say that from date X anything new you put up would grant MS a non-exclusive free licence to use that code, but that would pretty much kill the platform.

If I was a potential competitor of MS with a private repository on GitHub I'd be looking at migrating away so MS can't see what I'm working on but for FOSS stuff that's all in the open anyway I'd probably leave it there until/unless MS do something that made me want to leave.

[TheAnimus]

Hmm, there are at least five reasons Microsoft might want to acquire a company:

To shut down a competitor to stop it doing something they (MS) already do
To acquire the IP of a company to incorporate into their own product
To acquire something they don't do because it is profitable and they think they can add value to it (eg Skype)
To gain access to a user base to increase sals of their existing products
For anything not covered by the above! (I have never really understood why tey bught linkedIn - unless they thought somehow they thought it would compete with FB) unless it is to grow it and then sell it on at a profit later.

But a company has to grow to add shareholder value (shareholders are the owners and that is to whom Microsoft are accountable) so acquisitions can be a way of growing turnover and profitability.

Your missing that it's a service they use.

[DanceswithUnix]

Your missing that it's a service they use.

Indeed. I'm sure MS could have created a rival service for less (perhaps they already have one, I wouldn't know) but this way they get a well known service and may drag some developers into their fold along the way. I get the impression MS feel like they are the feisty under-dog in things like this.

I can imagine they will now move for better integration with Visual Studio. The platform is now owned by Microsoft, and it is only natural that it will evolve in the direction that most suits Microsoft. There will doubtless be cost cutting excercises in getting it hosted on Microsoft's cloud platform, and then anyone who isn't a Visual Studio user will be no doubt supported but I suspect as a second class user behind the ones who are giving MS money. People will bleat, but unless you want to stump up $7.5B you can't really complain.

MS paid a bonkers amount for Minecraft, at the end of which the Java version is still supported but the interesting work seems to happen on the C++ version that was originally the mobile variant and is now the Windows 10 variant with the vomit inducing (yes I tried it) VR support. No edge of a cliff drama, but it's their toy now.