https://kotlinlang.org logo
Join Slack
Powered by
a
Rip
😆 2
ℹ️ 2
®️ 2
🅿️ 2
🚫 2
g
Why? %)
a
Microsoft, as a company historically doesn't support open source - that among the unsatisfactory service rendering from when they bought Skype
Also the little conspiracy voice in me fears attempted monetary endeavours from public projects or data or something as bad
Tldr Microsoft stands for everything Github does not
s
shrug github itself isn’t open-source and already is pretty profitable from enterprise customers
➕ 3
a
You're not wrong
I like my development generally free of microsoft/apple as a personal preference
s
and while the statement “Microsoft, as a company historically doesn’t support open source” might evaluate to 
true
depending on how you define “historically”, endeavors such as Windows Subsystem for Linux, Git Virtual File System, Linux on Azure, and open-sourcing .NET Core seem to suggest otherwise
➕ 6
$CURRENT_YEAR != 2003
, and I don’t think it’s useful as a critic or a developer to evaluate Microsoft’s intentions as if it were still that point in time
a
They're definitely changing direction for sure
It's more profitable at this point support FOSS
s
that’s definitely true for cloud computing
and supporting FOSS gets much more developer mindshare
a
Nothing wrong with that. Im aware Microsoft is trying to shed its bad image off desparately and for good reason, but the reality many of their customers purchase these crazy licenses every 2 years or so (and to their fault, roll out too slowly), and another image I know they want to shed but is still in effect today is how binding developing in their systems can be
Maybe github is their way out of that bad image
Even if they still support those images activelt
g
Github is not free as well, and not cheap and pretty expensive for self-hosted usage. Don’t see how this different from MS. And this is the reason of emerging Gitlab popularity
a
*Github is not free if you want your repos to be private
g
but you want, it’s not “enterprise-only” feature, Gitlab and Bitbucket allows to have unlimited ammount of private repos, Bitbucket has up to 5 contributors to private repo (enough for small team), Gitlab unlimited contributors
So strange to blame MS about prices or not-free features when Github has so very not-friendly pricing
😕 1
Also Github is not a service with a lot of features that are not available on other competitors, many very important thing like code review, issue tracking, CI and so on just very basic and you need additional services
t
It's not wrong for a company to make a profit or charge for services. How else will they pay their developers much less keep the lights on and servers running ? It's easy to blame large monolithic corporations like Oracle and Microsoft for making money, but look the other way with startups or well-marketed brands like Apple. An objective concern is Microsoft doesn't have the best track record of acquiring strong brands (e.g. LinkedIn and Skype) and being good stewards of them.
👍 1
a
Never complained about Github prices, I'm not sure where that's coming from?
As previously mentioned, I'm sure part of the issue is the customers themselves, who is liable for slow rollout for services that are at best, buggy and slow, actively supported by Microsoft.
It's not a crime for a company to be profitable even if the software services they support is not always up to par. I'm personally not interested in Microsoft supporting code repository with my code if I'm not happy with their services. My philosophy of better control doesnt necessarily align with their more conservative file/OS features. I'm not going to condemn anyone who wants to continue to use Github, I'm sure they'll make it more friendly for windows users with more familar GUIs or whatever
t
@amanda.hinchman-dominguez maybe, but that's really it. Just sucks to have a product you like be acquired and mucked up.
arrow 1
r
When we talk about track records, we should also take into account recent behavior. Microsoft has been doing relative “good” for the developer community a la VS Code and App Center. They also open sourced .NET and Azure Cloud services are looking really neat. I’m not saying forget about what they did in the early oughts, but Microsoft of today looks pretty darn good, imo.
a
while .NET is widely used and well documented, as someone who has worked with both technologies with VS Code, I can say there are merits with VS, I still don't prefer the service. Many developers use the technology, yet so many don't understand the importance of software architecture or creating stable systems to back their production without creating a million different environments. I guess the issue is mostly the users themselves, but sometimes I wonder if it's the fact that .NET doesn't intuitively support good coding practices or if not enough attention is being given to universal poor practices.
This has been my experience thus far with .NET coupled with Azure, which I will admit Azure is great with .NET, but it kind of goes back to my original statement that using Microsoft technology can be too binding.
👍 1
c
@amanda.hinchman-dominguez The view you hold of Microsoft looks very antiquated to me. A lot of things have changed these past few years at Microsoft, starting with their leadership.
Take a look at the CEO they are going to put in place at Github in a few months, to start with.
👍 1
FWIW, I like that this CEO has a strong developer background but I’m also nervous that because of that, he might not be a very good CEO. But we’ll see
a
I know some amazing work has been done with Linux containerization thanks to Jess Frazelle , so I'll definitely look into the new direction Microsoft is facing.
@cedric That's a really interesting thought! I've seen too many non-technical CEOs in startups that are focused on lifestyles, so I wish I had more input on CEO leadership. I'm always rooting for technical CEOs, but you're right, they tend to struggle with the leadership aspect.
Still, Microsoft has their heart in the right place to appoint a techie as an advocate, at the very least.
c
These are very, very different roles. In much the same way while it’s fine to have eng managers or directors have a technical background, it’s equally important for them to not be too technical
Otherwise you’re just turning good technical people into bad leaders and it’s a lose-lose situation
😬 1
As for tying yourself to cloud services, well, yes, there’s no good solution to that today (except containers). If you deploy on Amazon, GCP, or Azure, you are tying yourself to proprietary API’s. Not something I’m comfortable with myself but I would approve such a decision if the circumstances warrant it.
a
^ I absolutely agree with this. I'm looking for more experiences with containerizarion for continuous integration, since that is the direction some companies wish to go for cloud services without propriety APIs
4 Views
Open in Slack
PreviousNext
Powered by