Microsoft Has Reportedly Reached A Deal To Acquire GitHub

[Azrael5]

the end of linux.

[tildearrow]

the end of linux.

Isn't GitHub only a mirror for the kernel source?

[n00b]

I definitely see why Microsoft would want to own GitHub. They probably wouldn't mind moving all those users to Azure, for instance.

Actually, I would rephrase that as, they want to integrate Github with Azure so that the development => testing => deployment cycle is seamless. It makes perfect sense actually. I would say this is great news, because now we might have a proper competitor for AWS, something that focusses on a developer's workflow; ghpages on steroids, so to speak.

[xpris]

Oh no....

[perpetually high]

Son of a...

[kpedersen]

I was always quite interested in why so many open-source developers accepted GitHub as the "defacto standard". It is just a company with a proprietary web service platform.

Same with Slack and all that other webdev crap that kids like to use.

Was GitHub even allowed to use "Git" in the name? Surely that is owned by Torvalds?

What is Microsoft going to do with GitHub that it didn't with CodePlex? That failed pretty bad.

I guess the answer is, stay light and standards compliant so you can jump ship when it starts to sink. Luckily I have done so

[DMJC]

Hahaha man you guys are paranoid. Microsoft acquiring Github will have absolutely zero effect. 1. Open Source will continue with/without github. 2. Copyright remains with project creators. 3. It's dead easy to shift your git tree to another hosting service. 4. Microsoft Loves Money and won't look to kill their golden goose. Companies use github and are paying cash to do so. There is nothing to worry about.

[King InuYasha]

This is why nearly all of my projects are primarily hosted on either pagure.io or GitLab.com. Both are very easy to set up and use with local servers, and Pagure even supports remote pull requests (that is, someone with their own git server that doesn't necessarily have to be running Pagure can send a pull request to a Pagure-hosted project). We need features like that to encourage decentralized Git hosting to be more of a reality.

[ssokolow]

I doubt that MS is going to do anything overtly negative with Github. Their M.O. is to funnel $$$ to patent trolls - you know, innovation through litigation. I wish one day they would prove me wrong - but I won't hold my breath. That said, the one word solution if you don't like Github being owned by MS is Bitbucket. I personally prefer Bitbucket to Github anyway.

I'm still waiting for BitBucket's equivalent to GitHub Pages to support having one repository per project, rather than forcing people to manually maintain all of their projects' free web hosting as folders within a single per-user repository.

Until then, I'll stick to using BitBucket only as off-site backup for my private or un-released projects.

[L_A_G]

If what I've heard about their internal culture is true* then let's hope the toxicity spreading to the rest of Microsoft is to them as what the photon torpedoes down the exhaust vents were to the Death Star. However a more likely end result is what happened to Skype and how Microsoft ruined everything great about it, starting from the anonymous peer-to-peer architecture and just made it a boring part of Microsoft's business offerings.

*Even Coralie Ada Ehmke, who used to work there for a brief period but left because of the toxic culture, thinks GitHub management has lost the plot.