SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[Update 20180604 @ 14:00 UTC: Acquisition confirmed. Microsoft is paying $7.5 billion in stock. Coverage at Microsoft, Security Week, The Register, and The Verge. Also, see the Microsoft blog post. --martyb]
Microsoft has reportedly acquired GitHub
Microsoft has reportedly acquired GitHub, and could announce the deal as early as Monday. Bloomberg reports that the software giant has agreed to acquire GitHub, and that the company chose Microsoft partly because of CEO Satya Nadella. Business Insider first reported that Microsoft had been in talks with GitHub recently.
Time to move off GitHub?
Previously: Microsoft Holds Acquisition Talks with Github
An AC also submitted Bloomberg's article.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Microsoft Agrees to Acquire GitHub... for $7.5 Billion [Updated]
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 105 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
poverty, n.:
An unfortunate state that persists as long
as anyone lacks anything he would like to have.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday June 04 2018, @02:01PM (3 children)
Watching the social politics of this unfold will be interesting.
On one hand its the usual monopoly buying a related monopoly, nothing interesting to see.
Also there is a side dish of past github weird behavior like pushing "codes of conduct" mostly weird rando mix of "behave like adults" wrapped up with a toxic dose of leftist stuff about equality of outcome and the only acceptable measure of quality being demographic diversity, to propagandize the appearance of inseparability of those two concepts.
I've always found it bizarre that seemingly moments after inventing and rolling out a massively decentralized source code management system, the logical next step is a hyper centralized single point of failure using that hyper decentralized SCM, kinda ridiculous system design.
Another novelty of the github culture is the two groups who prefer to pretend the other doesn't exist; the enterprise guys see some random Russian hacker having access to a 3rd party system containing their secret sauce source code to be a disaster and will install gitlab or alternatives to avoid the "github community" whereas on the other side you have community organizer types who seem to think the only purpose of a SCM is to increase the size of a vibrant and diverse culture oh and there's computers involved or something as a side effect, and having some random Russian hacker gaining access to your little hello_world.java repo is not a bug as the enterprise people see it but some kind of holy obligation. Of course the enterprise is where ALL the revenue comes from, despite the freeloading hippies claiming the only thing is their community, so that'll be interesting to watch.
A third item is Google famously has a SCM but they brand the hell out of it trying to encourage its use with their cloud offering. My guess is github will meet the microsoft fate, in that it'll remain github, but it'll be branded as something like "Microsoft(tm) Azure(tm) Cloud Computing(tm) SCM(tm)" and they'll be hooks added to trivially connect it to Azure (and if the Jenkins interoperability mysteriously breaks, too bad so sad). MS doesn't really have anything like the google offering (AFAIK...) so I imagine MS has billions of (dollars) reasons to want to integrate this into being their version.
Personally I use locally hosted gitlab both at home and professionally; I don't care about github directly, only indirectly as in bazillions of FOSS projects possibly having to move or otherwise be impacted, so I don't have a dog in the fight other than eating popcorn watching this unfold... I will say gitlab works really well.
My only comment on gitlab is source code user devs and sysadmins don't care that it doesn't scale to over 100K users because they'll spin up an instance for a new project used by 5 dudes, but the "community organizer" types absolutely freak out about it not scaling because obviously "it takes a village to raise a hello_world.c" and all that.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Monday June 04 2018, @02:15PM (2 children)
Maybe Microsoft wants GitHub as a reliable back end for Team Foundation Server. But TFS seems more akin to SVN than to Git. Of course, that won't stop Microsoft from trying to copy (poorly) or acquire something and bolt it together with their own crapware. With a heaping helping of proprietary goodness!
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Monday June 04 2018, @02:30PM
We were using git on TFS a couple of years ago, and have since migrated to git on VSTS (TFS in the cloud) - it's still git, you can use it from command line like real git, VS has attempted to put a VS face on it which sort of hides git, but it's still not 100% of the git cli functionality.
The microsofties bitched about how it wasn't the latest flavor of MS source control with shelf sets and whatever for about a year after the transition to git, but I think they've finally come to the understanding that: yes, you can screw up in git and make work for yourself, but it's no different from the screwups and work needed in other source control systems, and that git is actually easier/faster than most of them in significant ways.
Our repo-access speed took a hit when TFS moved to VSTS in the cloud, but not by enough to matter, and the great thing is that we have a local mirror of the repo that's just about zero effort to maintain and solves all kinds of firewall/access issues while also being local-net speed instead of cloud-speed.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday June 04 2018, @02:33PM
Don't worry. They'll fix that during the "Extend" phase.