It's Official: Microsoft Pays Out $7.5 Billion For GitHub, Nat Friedman Becomes The CEO

[wswartzendruber]

You need to move your code off github before the deal is formally signed or MS will have access to it.

Microsoft already owns Azure. This gives them access to oodles of crap as it is.

[nanonyme]

So? It's all open-source. My only concern is whether Microsoft will add a Hotmail-style "You're locked out of your existing account until you buy a smartphone and tell us its number." change.

What do you mean by "it's all open-source"? Github is a proprietary service

[ssokolow]

What do you mean by "it's all open-source"? Github is a proprietary service

My code on GitHub is all open-source, so MS had access to it all along. I was responding to this:

You need to move your code off github before the deal is formally signed or MS will have access to it.

[jm111]

Personally, I do not want to be tained by Microsoft. I have nothing against closed source, particularly not as a development model (rather than release),
but Microsoft is simply not a steward, but a corruptor.

[Juppstein]

The amount of paranoia around this deal is pretty entertaining. I have the feeling that some people cry havoc without even trying to see how this turns out. I might not be the biggest fan of closed source, but if the closed source that is MS keeps their hands away from the open source that is hosted on github, I don't mind whether Microsoft owns the place or not. And if they invest into it to make it better in places where it needs to be improved, all the better. And IF they would start to screw it up at a later date, I still can start to think about going to another place at that time. But running around yelling doom is not the right approach in this situation, IMO.

[ssokolow]

The amount of paranoia around this deal is pretty entertaining. I have the feeling that some people cry havoc without even trying to see how this turns out. I might not be the biggest fan of closed source, but if the closed source that is MS keeps their hands away from the open source that is hosted on github, I don't mind whether Microsoft owns the place or not. And if they invest into it to make it better in places where it needs to be improved, all the better. And IF they would start to screw it up at a later date, I still can start to think about going to another place at that time. But running around yelling doom is not the right approach in this situation, IMO.

Agreed. My only reason for double-checking that my exit plans are up to date is that Microsoft already ransomed my old Hotmail account for an SMS number that doesn't exist for me to give them, so it's a valid concern that they might do it again with GitHub.

[jm111]

Agreed. My only reason for double-checking that my exit plans are up to date is that Microsoft already ransomed my old Hotmail account for an SMS number that doesn't exist for me to give them, so it's a valid concern that they might do it again with GitHub.

So you're basically saying you already know of one valid reason; the other ones aren't clear yet,

so as per the previous poster, you are going to assume they don't exist.

Or rather, if you didn't have this prior experience, you wouldn't even double-check at all, so your current "alertness" is just basically random chance since you're gonna wait until some problem presents itself.

Not trying to diss your choice; just saying that this sort of "safety plan" is typically the thing that ends in "oops, too late now" scenario's. Typically when you know something is going to happen anyway, if you act straight away, you will have plenty of time to do it right, if you wait till calamity strikes, you will have to do it in a pinch;

people may not be paranoid; but simply pre-emptive.

After the pre-emptive strike, all worries are gone; yours still exist ;-).

[ssokolow]

So you're basically saying you already know of one valid reason; the other ones aren't clear yet,

so as per the previous poster, you are going to assume they don't exist.

Or rather, if you didn't have this prior experience, you wouldn't even double-check at all, so your current "alertness" is just basically random chance since you're gonna wait until some problem presents itself.

Not trying to diss your choice; just saying that this sort of "safety plan" is typically the thing that ends in "oops, too late now" scenario's. Typically when you know something is going to happen anyway, if you act straight away, you will have plenty of time to do it right, if you wait till calamity strikes, you will have to do it in a pinch;

people may not be paranoid; but simply pre-emptive.

After the pre-emptive strike, all worries are gone; yours still exist ;-).

No, I've maintained a exit plan for years and I keep current backups of all of my GitHub repos and wikis in ~/src where they get multiply replicated as part of my incremental backups. When I said double-checking, I wasn't using it as an idiom.

That said, there is one piece of my exit plan I've been shamefully procrastinating: Writing a GithubAPI-based backup dumper for GitHub Issues and having backups of those pre-emptively.

[jm111]

No, I've maintained a exit plan for years and I keep current backups of all of my GitHub repos and wikis in ~/src where they get multiply replicated as part of my incremental backups. When I said double-checking, I wasn't using it as an idiom.

That said, there is one piece of my exit plan I've been shamefully procrastinating: Writing a GithubAPI-based backup dumper for GitHub Issues and having backups of those pre-emptively.

Well in that case your situation indeed has sufficient safety, I would also judge; for me online repositories are often backups themselves, although I generally also have local copies.

Yes, a weak situation, I know, but paranoia for one (in your case it could be called paranoia) might not be for another, depending on other safety measures.

So I see where you are coming from.

[mustionown]

So it begins...