Microsoft Acquires GitHub?

[btarunr]

In a move that could significantly shake up the software industry, reports are emerging that Microsoft may have acquired GitHub, and that an announcement to that effect could be made on Monday (4th June). A 2015 valuation of GitHub put it at USD $2 billion, but it's not clear at what price Redmond struck this deal. GitHub had been struggling for the past few quarters and hadn't appointed a full-time CEO since the departure of Chris Wanstrath in August 2017.

This deal could have sweeping ramifications on the software industry because proprietary software companies use GitHub for private repositories of software source-code, so their developer teams spread across the globe could collaborate (they now have to content with Microsoft owning GitHub); and for ideologically-charged free software (and OSS) developers to continue to run their projects on GitHub. Microsoft has been a top contributor on GitHub, with over 1,000 employees pushing code to public and non-public projects on the platform.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[R-T-B]

Gitlab time.

 

[lexluthermiester]

This is a disaster! WTH was Github thinking?

 

[Easo]

Or just maybe there is no reason to panic yet?

 

[windwhirl]

Okaaaayyyy.... Maybe we should start making a list of alternatives to GitHub?

Also, GitHub is a private company, but who owns it? Who gets money from this move?

 

[R-T-B]

Or just maybe there is no reason to panic yet?

That's not an option for competitors to Microsoft with private repositories at github, of which there are quite a lot.

My little bits of code are all open source so my only objection is that everything Microsoft touches loses it's soul (see Minecraft as a prime example).

 

[moproblems99]

I think you will see the valuation of GitLab rise. Hmmm, are they publicly traded....

 

[VasDrakken]

Not sure how comfortable I am of open source being bought, but they do house MASM, which is what ninety percent of the compilers use to compile software. If they fix that horrible pull, get, fork confusion it would be really nice.

Currently if you have an old fork of say epic's engine that has a modification you can not simply isolate the code and say update to the newest branch, you can not over right the fork (which is good in important ways if the code is an important change) but means you can be stuck paying to have a second and third fork for a software branch, even if just to compare the old code to the new code and figure out if the change you made is useful in the new fork if it was there for historical purpase, which epic does when someone gets contribution credit so they have a blue print of what changes happened when. But if you want to use it to update to the new main truck it is very confusing for even people who use svn servers.

Usually it is get, put, compare, fork and archive. But for the maintainers to maintain the code it has gotten very convoluted, if you stop working on one branch then you come back a version later.

 

[Arrakis9]

if this is true, by this time next year github will no longer be a thing and be completely absorbed.

 

[chaosmassive]

correct me if I am wrong,
does it mean linux ecosystem will be hurt the most from this acquisition?
since (again, pardon my ignorance) most of linux repository in github?
'cause m$ want to suppress linux from very long time ago

 

[R-T-B]

correct me if I am wrong,
does it mean linux ecosystem will be hurt the most from this acquisition?
since (again, pardon my ignorance) most of linux repository in github?
'cause m$ want to suppress linux from very long time ago

No.

Though open source software will probaby be hurt by this move, linux is hosted at kernel.org not at github. It is merely mirrored to github as a backup.

 

[PowerPC]

-> Bitbucket

Or better yet, host yourself, if you are so worried.

 

[johnspack]

Actually a lot of linux apps are hosted on git, I really hope this isn't true. Ms needs to go back off.. I think a lot of people won't like this.

 

[paymok]

No point to panic. Software always cost money. Can't see that is a problem.
No software is really free. They reason project are free is just because they ain't too great, they need people to contribute, they want the fame,
open source is the best place to go. It is uncommon to see a lot open source project ends up licensing the "Pro" feature with $$$.
Why? because at some point to build great software really need brilliant devs, not a random dude wants to checkin some code
just to fit their own needs. These people need to earn for living.

So i don't have a problem with m$, also doesnt mind they charge money for software,
As long as they make good stuff.

 

[1stn00b]

Actually a lot of linux apps are hosted on git, I really hope this isn't true. Ms needs to go back off.. I think a lot of people won't like this.

in simple terms : GitHub is a hosting company for Git repositories

 

[PowerPC]

Actually a lot of linux apps are hosted on git, I really hope this isn't true. Ms needs to go back off.. I think a lot of people won't like this.

Most people don't know that Microsoft is actually the single biggest contributor to the Linux project, in terms of the amount of code they write for it. Microsoft needs Linux because they use it for Azure.

Do you think Microsoft will actually want to mess with Linux, when they heavily use it and contribute to it? Anybody can have a copy of the code and prove easily if someone changed something. That's kinda the whole point of Github.

 

[R-T-B]

-> Bitbucket

Or better yet, host yourself, if you are so worried.

That's not my worry. The worry is that github will vanish or shutter, and with it a huge library of publically accessible source code.

What good does source code do the internet if it stays in a developers private repo?

Like I said though, still not a big concern. Gitlab etc will inevitably fill the gaps for anything worth while... at least I hope.

Do you think Microsoft will actually want to mess with Linux, when they heavily use it and contribute to it?

Frankly, yes. They want to pervert Linux to their ideals (we are seeing a lot of this in linux land lately, certain devs pushing their systemd agenda for example at the expense of choice).

And why wouldn't they? You think they are contributing all that effort for charity or something? No. They want linux to become dependent on them for it's very survival. When that day comes, they own it in everything but name...

 

[R0H1T]

Frankly, yes. They want to pervert Linux to their ideals (we are seeing a lot of this in linux land lately, certain devs pushing their systemd agenda for example at the expense of choice).

And why wouldn't they? You think they are contributing all that effort for charity or something? No. They want linux to become dependent on them for it's very survival. When that day comes, they own it in everything but name...

Any recent examples of this, especially wrt MS?

 

[Assimilator]

Any recent examples of this, especially wrt MS?

No. This is just another anti-Microsoft circle-jerk thread.

The old Microsoft of embrace, extend, extinguish is pretty much gone since Satella came along, for the simple reason that he's figured out that that approach doesn't make them as much money as simply buying (potentially) profitable companies like Mojang or GitHub. Not to mention that MS's software focus is now on cloud computing, so everything they do in the software space is a means to make their massively-profitable Azure more attractive to prospective clients. That means if they have to write code for their "arch-enemy" Linux, they will, because profit trumps petty rivalries.

Personally, I don't see the value proposition in GitHub, so I'm leery as to what sort of things MS will try to monetise it. But if you think they'd be willing to pay top dollar for it just to run it into the ground, because, I dunno... arbitrary evil... yeah, no, take off your tinfoil hat.

 

[R-T-B]

Any recent examples of this, especially wrt MS?

No, not really in recent times. As a matter of fact in what may seem a surprising reversal of my argument, they aren't really in that business anymore. Not big enough to waste time with that anymore ala something like google.

But that WAS what they were when they first started sticking their hand in the linux pot, and I'm sure their motivations have changed very little. But no, I am not worried about them suceeding in the least. I am more worried about them sucking a good thing dry as they've done before many many times.

No. This is just another anti-Microsoft circle-jerk thread.

I mean, sort of, but like EA games and such, they fully earned such comments and skepticism.

 

[RejZoR]

I'm just wondering what's in for the Microsoft? They aren't buying it out of good will...

 

[Assimilator]

I mean, sort of, but like EA games and such, they fully earned such comments and skepticism.

Again, this is no longer Bill Gates' Microsoft. Their contribution and dedication to OSS is truly staggering and the kind of culture shift that doesn't happen overnight and cannot happen without the blessing of the highest management. To be blunt, they've put long-established OSS projects to shame... if there is a sinister motive here, I can't see it.

I'm just wondering what's in for the Microsoft? They aren't buying it out of good will...

They intend to monetize it, duh. The closest "competitor" to GitHub, GitLab, has done quite well in that regard, and presumably Microsoft wants a piece of that pie. Personally I'm hoping MS uses the opportunity to finally kill that horrible abortion of a product called VSTS.

 

[btarunr]

I'm just wondering what's in for the Microsoft? They aren't buying it out of good will...

It's a treasure-chest of code; both public and private. And Microsoft wants to rebuild the pull it had over bright devs during the MSDN glory-days. And if nothing, it wants to make _really_ sure its non-public code stays non-public as its devs are addicted to GitHub.

 

[silentbogo]

I'm just wondering what's in for the Microsoft? They aren't buying it out of good will...

One of the biggest ones would be the ability to manage full integration with Visual Studio on both ends, redoing all collaboration functions in VS to work only with Github and remove all of their legacy stuff(which costs $$$ to support).
Not enough to justify the purchase on its own, but it's only one of their reasons.
The other big one is selling more premium services for devs.

Sounds scary, but it's really not.

 

[BadFrog]

This is a disaster! WTH was Github thinking?

Investors probably pushed for it. Andreessen Horowitz, Sqquoia Capital, Thrive Capital, etc.