# Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire Coding Site GitHub



## Beastie7 (Jun 4, 2018)

Link

What could this mean for the source tree repo? Should the devs jump ship? Will the redmond company screw us all? Oh my!

Film at 11.


----------



## Cthulhux (Jun 4, 2018)

I hope that the general disapproval of Microsoft in the Open Source community will lead to more projects considering their options. It is a very bad sign that one large commercial company (GitHub does not exist just for the fun of it) which is anti-FLOSS, anti-meritocratic and anti-white has the power over so many free software projects. The notable advantage of Git, according to Git advocates, is that it is "decentral". There is no obvious reason to rely on one central Git hoster because of that.

I'll happily support any project which decides to stop supporting GitHub - for whichever reason that may be.

jm2c


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jun 4, 2018)

The mass exodus from github started a few days ago on the rumor.

I do not trust Microsoft and never have.

EDIT: And this I just saw from gitlab.



> We're seeing 10x the normal daily amount of repositories #*movingtogitlab*


----------



## rigoletto@ (Jun 4, 2018)

New GitHub logo.


----------



## ShelLuser (Jun 4, 2018)

Well, I'm not worried to be honest. I think way too many people allow themselves to be led by assumptions and of course prejudice against Microsoft. Please note: I'm definitely not claiming that Microsoft is that fully innocent and misunderstood IT company, heck no.

But I also don't think they deserve some of the backlash they're getting either. And I've seen this happening way too many times before. For example: I'm a vivid Minecraft player. And no, I'm not a teen (born 1970, aged 48) but I really enjoy the game nonetheless. It takes getting used to, sure, but once you do....

Alas, I'll spare you guys a rant. My point though is that Microsoft has also bought Minecraft (as you might know) and sure enough: this would spell the end for Minecraft because $Microsoft. Now... they have made some controversial changes and decisions. For example: 'Minecraft' as a name has always been a Java game. _However_, right now the name "Minecraft" fully refers to the previously known "Pocket Edition" ("PE") and the original is now known as "Minecraft - Java edition". Definitely some controversy there. But it also makes sense: their's more money to be made there (also through micro transactions) and there are more players on PE than on Java.

But the Java edition is still going strong today. Despite popular rants and negative rumors that it was all going to be Windows 10 ("PE") and Java would soon be dropped we're now several years away and right now the Minecraft community is anxiously looking forward to the release of "Project Aquatica", version 1.13. Said to hit the Java edition within a few weeks. Dropping Java, how?

Also... Microsoft has been here before. Codeplex. I was a member and I actually enjoyed that website. Didn't do much with it but, even so, it wasn't all too bad.

So yeah, my projects will stay put and I think it's the best thing to do: not react in panic, lets first see where this is taking us. I honestly think this could turn out into a good thing. IF you're willing to give MS a fair chance. "Best tool for the job" and all.


----------



## Datapanic (Jun 4, 2018)

Shouldn't it be the other way around?  "github agrees to be acquired by Microsoft"  I've seen a few sources remove themselves from github and it's kinda sad because the code is essentially gone unless you are like me and save it locally.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Jun 4, 2018)

Datapanic 

There were many people already migrating to GitLab from GitHub before the Microsoft deal. I guess that will just accelerate this move.


----------



## ShelLuser (Jun 4, 2018)

I still consider GitLab a little bit odd considering their reputation with backups   Maybe that's a bit of an unfair sneer on my part, could be & fair enough, but I still can't wrap my head around the scenario where a company can maintain 6 backup schemes and all of them fail (mostly because no one checked to see if they actually did anything).

Even so... these are interesting times


----------



## forquare (Jun 4, 2018)

Not all, but quite a few Ports pull code directly from GitHub, will be interesting to see what projects migrate code and how quickly changes get committed to the Ports tree.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jun 4, 2018)

What is wrong with Microsoft buying GitHub


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jun 4, 2018)

ShelLuser said:


> IF you're willing to give MS a fair chance.


Been there. Done that. Fooled me once. Won't get fooled again.


----------



## shkhln (Jun 4, 2018)

drhowarddrfine said:


> What is wrong with Microsoft buying GitHub



It's a good opportunity to consider mirroring/backuping repository and issues somewhere else but deleting GitHub account sounds a bit extreme.


----------



## zirias@ (Jun 4, 2018)

This is ridiculous. Yes, as a paying customer of GitHub, using it for my closed-source products, I'd be (a bit) worried. But definitely not as an opensource dev in my spare time. After all, this is git, a distributed SCM, where every "working copy" is a whole repository. There's nothing anyone could ever do that would _force _me to continue using GitHub -- I can push my repos to another service (gitlab, bitbucket) or to my own server any time. So, just relax ...


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jun 4, 2018)

Or just do as we have always done. Use your own servers. Except for publicly necessary availability, I see no need for github.


----------



## xtremae (Jun 4, 2018)

Smaller projects enjoy the benefit of agility and will probably migrate in droves, while larger ones will wait and see. As for the new owner and its intentions, it is a matter of time and therefore mostly irrelevant. What matters is that one more independent project gets assimilated with little (if any) benefit for the end-user.


----------



## usdmatt (Jun 4, 2018)

https://news.microsoft.com/2018/06/04/microsoft-to-acquire-github-for-7-5-billion/


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jun 4, 2018)

usdmatt said:


> https://news.microsoft.com/2018/06/04/microsoft-to-acquire-github-for-7-5-billion/


Acquisiton will empower developers, accelerate GitHub's growth *and advance Microsoft services*


----------



## SirDice (Jun 4, 2018)

Beastie7 said:


> What could this mean for the source tree repo?


Absolutely nothing. The source tree on Github is a read-only copy of the original subversion repository. FreeBSD development is done with phabricator using subversion as the VCS.


----------



## Crivens (Jun 4, 2018)

getopt a business will report taxable income when they absolutely find no way to hide it.


----------



## roddierod (Jun 5, 2018)

getopt said:


> 7.5 Billion USD. Imagine the amount of taxes they avoided before to afford such a deal.
> 
> Isn't that a little too much for a business that produced losses?
> 
> But wait ... now you have an evaluation of the worth of data and metadata of the people that used GitHub in the past. The service provided obviously was not for free ...



This is the part that I don't understand. How is github possibly worth this much? I can't see the metadata on users being anywhere near this valuable.  The 1st thought to cross my mind, can call me a conspiracy nut or what not, is that someone section of Microsoft is going to be combing the repos for ideas to then pass off as their own...


----------



## zirias@ (Jun 5, 2018)

roddierod said:


> This is the part that I don't understand. How is github possibly worth this much? I can't see the metadata on users being anywhere near this valuable.  The 1st thought to cross my mind, can call me a conspiracy nut or what not, is that someone section of Microsoft is going to be combing the repos for ideas to then pass off as their own...


Probably not. Some Github content *is *important for Microsoft because .NET Core development happens on that platform. There are also a lot of related projects. This alone isn't a reason to buy the platform, but maybe Microsoft just wants to make sure Github survives, because of this -- of course they profit a lot from an active opensource scene around .NET Core.

As for the "value" .. this is something I can't understand either, but it looks like the basic idea is the following (often seen in the past even with online services that never made even a tiny bit of profit): If a platform has a large and active user base, the thought seems to be there HAS to be a way to generate large profits, even if nobody knows how  (which reminds me a bit of South Park).


----------



## Crivens (Jun 5, 2018)

What can be the reason is this, and you may want to think of this when facebook buys a new startup for a ridiculous price, or google does or...: these companies are only worth that much as long as people _believe_ they are.

When you need to extract some money from such a construct without loosing a lot of share value you need to, kind of, not give away that money.  You buy some small shop or startup which was started by someone you want to give that money to. So he gets what is due, maybe, and you get something in return to write into the books to keep the balance. If it does not work out, pity pity cry cry but you did an investment into the future of your company. It is not like you liquidated half of a fortune 500 just to settle a drunken bet, isn't it? If it does work, so much the better.

The question would now be what does Microsoft want these 7.5E9$ to do out there?


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jun 5, 2018)

Some companies pay to use github. Fakeblock was one of them.


----------



## SirDice (Jun 5, 2018)

Relevant: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...ying-github-needs-to-offer-a-better-solution/


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jun 5, 2018)

That article spends a lot of time asking, "If not Microsoft purchasing github, then who?", when the important question that needs asking is, "Why?". Why should any other company purchase it in the first place? The article, and many others, ask the same question of Microsoft. Why did they buy it?


----------



## fryshke (Jun 5, 2018)

I was hoping it's EEE and the Extinguish part would be the killing of that javascript abomination that is Electron. Sadly, no deal.


----------



## PMc (Jun 5, 2018)

SirDice said:


> Relevant: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...ying-github-needs-to-offer-a-better-solution/



No, it's not relevant. It's just proof that these people have lost the ability to think outside-the-box.
Which is not a suprize: the Internet is no longer a place of innovation, it's now just business-as-usual. And consequential, the developers are no longer able to be innovative, they're now mainstream, i.e. just the same brainwashed zombies like you see walking around your neighbourhood shopping-mall.

Recently I was hit by a defect with a piece of software. So I did what I always do, identify it, analyze it, fix it, and then - well, usually I just post a message here, so others can find the issue and adapt the workaround (and if anybody is fond of bug-reports, they have enough information so they can write themselves one).

But in that case, that piece of software was maintained on GitHup. And so I found out that I am *not allowed* to inform people about the defect and it's fix, unless I become *customer* of the GitHup corporation first!
Grotesque enough as this is, it is not yet all of it. Because furtermore, in order to provide the bug-fix, I have to provide proof that I have received* proper social therapy*, in order to provide the _required political correctness_ to be allowed to participate in the software project.

Alright, this is what once was free software projects.

That same thing has been achieved already in the realm of politics: there none of the imminent work is done anymore, instead witch-hunts are celebrated against people supposedly being not politically correct enough. Onviousely now we need to achieve the same in the realm of engineering: get rid of all the skill and expertise, and replace it by proper social therapy.


----------



## Crivens (Jun 5, 2018)

Sounds like some awful experience. Is that the cult if the GitHup or some specific project?


----------



## PMc (Jun 5, 2018)

Crivens said:


> Sounds like some awful experience. Is that the cult if the GitHup or some specific project?



I think both of it, in part. You know I'm oldschool - so maybe I don't get it fully - but I think the idea of that GitHup stuff is that you can participate in collaborative projects - but You have to "signup" to do so, which is just an euphemism for "_become a customer of GitHup corporation_" - with all probable implications.
Its about the same as with Facebook: if You're interested in some special interest stuff (like -in my case, neoclassical music), such information is nowadays only available on FB, so in order to get it, one has to signup to FB, which implies becoming a customer of them. which also implies handing over all of one's personal data to them for sale.
So this is an essential problem with those companies like FB, Whatsapp, GitHup and similar: the technological innovation provided by these companies is on the level of something a schoolboy can write in a couple of weeks, nevertheless they are traded for billions - not because they provide such great technology, but because they have created a monopoly, and because they concentrate user-data (which doesn't belong to them, but which they nevertheless can sell).

The other part of it was indeed specific to that specific software project - which seems to be very proud of having developed a social conduct regulatory defining what would be the proper social quality for participating in their project. I thought I'd become crazy... but then this is just the typical socialist behaviour: to crawl before the big capitalist corporations and at the same time wanna discipline and reprimand your neighbour.


----------



## Crivens (Jun 5, 2018)

That is not socialist. That is what we call spineless over here. It is those who were not tough enough to be the school bully, now trying to compensate.


----------



## Spartrekus (Jun 5, 2018)

there are many movies about future of informatics

maybe satan microsoft will ruin all our planet  by the end


----------



## SirDice (Jun 6, 2018)

PMc said:


> You know I'm oldschool - so maybe I don't get it fully - but I think the idea of that GitHup stuff is that you can participate in collaborative projects - but You have to "signup" to do so, which is just an euphemism for "_become a customer of GitHup corporation_" - with all probable implications.


Name one repository hoster that allows you to post anything (patches, bug reports, whatever) _without_ requiring you to signing up.


----------



## PMc (Jun 6, 2018)

SirDice said:


> Name one repository hoster that allows you to post anything (patches, bug reports, whatever) _without_ requiring you to signing up.



Point NOT taken.
What is called "signup" is in fact something very different: it is agreeing to "terms and conditions" dictated by some corporation. The implication of these - well, you need a lawyer first to understand them...


----------



## SirDice (Jun 6, 2018)

PMc said:


> What is called "signup" is in fact something very different: it is agreeing to "terms and conditions" dictated by some corporation.


You do realize that you actually signed up and agreed to our terms and conditions before you could post on these forums? 



PMc said:


> The implication of these - well, you need a lawyer first to understand them...


That's something I can agree with to a certain extend. A lot of terms and conditions require a masters degree in law before you're able to understand them. This is one of the reasons EU law stipulates they must be written in plain, understandable language. Those same EU laws also state that any terms and conditions I agree to can never waiver any of my legal rights. 

https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treatment/unfair-contract-terms/index_en.htm


----------



## Crivens (Jun 6, 2018)

I object. The terms and conditions for this forum are pretty straightforward and clear. The terms and conditions written by any fortune-500 law department can be read by someone with a master in law without his mind imploding, but he can only state what he believes to be the meaning. You can not compare these two.


----------



## PMc (Jun 6, 2018)

SirDice said:


> You do realize that you actually signed up and agreed to our terms and conditions before you could post on these forums?



I'm well aware of that - but I didn't see a corporation there. (The only thing that might somehow resemble a corporation is the FreeBSD Foundation, but that's definitely not a corporation in the usual sense.)


----------



## Spartrekus (Jun 6, 2018)

PMc said:


> Point NOT taken.
> What is called "signup" is in fact something very different: it is agreeing to "terms and conditions" dictated by some corporation. The implication of these - well, you need a lawyer first to understand them...



your money, credit card, your friend contacts, your data,... whatever Microsoft or Apple can steal from You.


----------



## bookwormep (Jun 6, 2018)

Here is some more background from article written:
https://www.itwire.com/open-sauce/8...ake-friedman-wrong-choice-to-head-github.html

Not sure if there could be considerable conflict of laws (but 
lawyers are happy to determine that for a price).


----------



## shkhln (Jun 6, 2018)

Spartrekus said:


> your money, credit card, your friend contacts, your data,... whatever Microsoft or Apple can steal from You.



Are we still on the FreeBSD support forum? As long the process of a large corporation screwing their customers doesn't involve this OS it's totally ok with me. Besides, I'm having trouble imagining how exactly MS would ruin a glorified file hosting.


----------



## nekoexmachina (Jun 6, 2018)

shkhln said:


> Are we still on the FreeBSD support forum? As long the process of a large corporation screwing their customers doesn't involve this OS it's totally ok with me. Besides, I'm having trouble imagining how exactly MS would ruin a glorified file hosting.


I think they have history of successfully destroying some software packages, do they not? Skype, that 3d thing they've acquired, Nokia..


----------



## shkhln (Jun 6, 2018)

Not really, Skype has _always_ been a UI horror show. (Remember loading entire conversation history just to search a string?) The replacement of p2p with centralized communication was arguably successful. I can't comment on Nokia or 3d things.


----------



## nekoexmachina (Jun 7, 2018)

Skype always was a UI freakshow, that is very true. Then in the glorious past days it actually worked across multiple operating systems.. While nowadays, it fails to deliver messages when Cisco anyconnect is connected on windows, and on Unices it eats 100% cpu all the time. That is proper software destruction. That is anecdotal evidence, so grain of salt must be taken but still.
At least latest update says "Sending." instead of "Sent" on non-sent messages, thats some improvement.

As per 3d package, after some thought I've recalled the name - Softimage.


----------



## Beastie7 (Jun 7, 2018)

Spartrekus said:


> your money, credit card, your friend contacts, your data,... whatever Microsoft or Apple can steal from You.



You sound like one of those terribly confused stallman zealots. I'm an Apple customer, and they haven't stolen anything from me.


----------



## ralphbsz (Jun 7, 2018)

Spartrekus said:


> your money, credit card, your friend contacts, your data,... whatever Microsoft or Apple can steal from You.


I use Microsoft products, Apple products, and products by pretty much all major computer companies.  Going way back: I still have two machines made by "Digital Equipment" in my house (they only get booted roughly once every ten years).  I don't think there are any Jupiter Networks in my house, but at times there was Cisco hardware here too (a small ISDN router).

And none of them have ever stolen my money (I give it to them voluntarily), my credit cards, or my contact list.  I don't think I've ever seen any of the people on my contact list being contacted by computer companies I have dealt with.

My data?  Good question.  It's theoretically possible that someone has stolen my data.  In which case I wonder what they did with it; I've never seen any effect of it.  I still trust the major computer companies enough to use their infrastructure; I even use cloud services offered by the major players for managing and storing my personal data, I trust them enough.

Now, Facebook is a different story.  I know full well that everything I post on Facebook is being used by them.  That's a problem, but unfortunately Facebook is useful enough that I have to do things there.

On the other hand, I've had my credit card number stolen frequently (it happens roughly once every year or two).  In the few cases where I was able to track back (roughly) where it happened, the fault never lied with Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, IBM, HP, or any company like that.  Not even with Visa, Mastercard, or AmericanExpress.  But with little gas stations, restaurants and stores whose gas pumps have been modified to steal credit card numbers.

I've been attacked by hackers (in the early 2000s, a Linux machine at my house was rootkitted; fortunately, the attempt failed, because the script kiddies had bugs in their scripts).

I trust Microsoft and Apple (and all such companies, with the exception of Uber and Facebook) much more than I trust the corner hardware store, or the local gas station, and that's based on decades of experience.


----------



## ralphbsz (Jun 7, 2018)

On the original topic of this thread: I have NO idea why Microsoft bought GitHub.  It makes no sense.  Matter-of-fact, I never understood why running GitHub as a for-profit company makes any sense to begin with.  It's very hard to make money from the "free" users of GitHub; you can't show enough ads to pay for the operating costs of such a service.  And for the "non-free" users (which have to pay GitHub), the barrier to entry is very low, so users will migrate from GitHub to any cheaper service; that's a hard business to be in.  So Microsoft didn't buy GitHub to become rich from it.

Microsoft didn't buy GitHub to do espionage either.  All the open source software stored on GitHub is openly accessible; Microsoft could have gotten it for free.

The idea that Microsoft (which has always been at odds with a large fraction of the software development community) can improve its standing with coders by buying their favorite storage place is laughable.  On the contrary, the usual microsoft-haters in that community will have it even more now.

Was it an acquihire?  Unlikely.  At $7.5B, and a typical valuation of roughly a million per engineer, GitHub would have had to employ thousands of star engineers; they were nowhere close to that.

I think the real answer is this: Microsoft has an unbelievably large amount of money, and no idea of how to invest that productively.  So they just tried something; maybe it will pan out, and if not, the loss of $7.5B makes little difference to them.  There is no point trying to analyze the purchase rationally, since Microsoft doesn't have to think about money rationally any longer.


----------



## zirias@ (Jun 7, 2018)

ralphbsz said:


> On the original topic of this thread: I have NO idea why Microsoft bought GitHub. It makes no sense. Matter-of-fact, I never understood why running GitHub as a for-profit company makes any sense to begin with.



I still assume the main driver here is .NET Core. Microsoft chose GitHub as the development platform for .NET Core, obviously because a lot of open source contributors like it. They have a very vital interest in the success of .NET Core, it's a central element of their strategy. What MS aims to sell in the future seems to be cloud services and consulting, and a lot of it will be based on .NET Core. Of course, I'm surprised by the actual price they pay for it as well, but disregarding that, it makes sense for MS to operate a well-established platform for their own OSS development as well as for contributors, especially after retiring CodePlex. I expect they will keep the "free for any non-commercial use" modus, because reputation is important as well -- you have to "appear nice", so people will happily contribute to your own projects.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jun 7, 2018)

ralphbsz said:


> I have NO idea why Microsoft bought GitHub


The Cost of Developers
The first part is background. Toward the end is the reason Microsoft bought github.

Essentially, Microsoft owns the platform, Windows, where everybody lives. But that platform is dwindling and the cost of getting developers to work on it, versus the web which they have no control over, is getting higher. Buying github gets them those developers where they can influence them to work on Microsoft products.

As stated in Microsoft's announcement, buying github allows them to "advance Microsoft services".


----------



## Minbari (Jun 7, 2018)

It's gone become a dead project like other which where buyed by M$. Where is Hotmail now? Dead, Skype? Fiasco. Linkedin, Nokia,...the list is so long.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Jun 7, 2018)

Just to be a bit cynical: Tesco probably knows more about me than GCHQ': Infosec boffins on surveillance capitalism.


----------



## Crivens (Jun 7, 2018)

To bend this back to topic, what drhowarddrfine brought in looks actually be some valid reason. They need developers, and those need to be cheap and fast. Simply being a platform that stays compatible with the past does not seem to be enough these days. As a developer, I would hate my target platform change twice between design and deploy. Wait, I actually hate it. And that might be why they financed SCO and Icaza, simply to stir the water and blow the wind of change into the ecosystem. Because serious developers hate that.


----------



## kpedersen (Jun 7, 2018)

Are there not quite a lot of sloppy tools that grab things from GitHub as needed? Things like Docker, NPM (when it needs to build native code), PIP, Ruby-gems, Rust Cargo, etc. I think even some ports collections use GitHub don't they? Pacman, etc.

Something just seems wrong about Microsoft being the back-end for all of them. However I cannot see the developers of these kind of things changing.

Personally I always avoided that haphazard crap and kept dependencies quite clean in my own software. I keep finding new benefits to that.

I am quite interested to find out who the next "web kiddies dependency dump" platform of choice is going to be next. My guess is BitBucket because for some reason people love Atlassian, proprietary Git client and their DRM.


----------



## kpedersen (Jun 7, 2018)

Crivens said:


> And that might be why they financed SCO and Icaza, simply to stir the water and blow the wind of change into the ecosystem. Because serious developers hate that.



Thats quite interesting as an idea. I notice that FOSS has not had a stable desktop environment for many, many years now, it keeps changing so users can not rely on it. Perhaps Microsoft is having a hand in that too? I always thought it was suspicious how Mono got into Gnome so damn quickly and so damn pointlessly with that tiny note taking program (Tomboy).
Perhaps Lennart Poettering with his pointless init changes is also on the Microsoft payroll. This must mean that RedHat is in on it 

That would be such a fantastic strategy by Microsoft. Keep FOSS such a moving target that it is practically unusable! I mean for many Linux distros, it is already pretty much there. Things like ifconfig, etc are all swapped out.


----------



## Crivens (Jun 7, 2018)

As we said while wearing the green: once is shit happens, twice is bad luck. Thrice is enemy action.


----------



## Spartrekus (Jun 7, 2018)

shkhln said:


> Are we still on the FreeBSD support forum? As long the process of a large corporation screwing their customers doesn't involve this OS it's totally ok with me. Besides, I'm having trouble imagining how exactly MS would ruin a glorified file hosting.



Come on, you fairly know why Microsoft wants GITHUB






Let's take over the World !!


----------



## hamtaro (Jun 7, 2018)

According to Wikipedia: Microsoft (acquisition in progress).


----------



## PMc (Jun 7, 2018)

ralphbsz said:


> On the other hand, I've had my credit card number stolen frequently (it happens roughly once every year or two).  In the few cases where I was able to track back (roughly) where it happened, the fault never lied with Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon, IBM, HP, or any company like that.  Not even with Visa, Mastercard, or AmericanExpress.  But with little gas stations, restaurants and stores whose gas pumps have been modified to steal credit card numbers.



Ups. Never had such, and I'd think it is extremely stupid if some restaurant or whatever would do that - because they must expect that somebody might get pissed and might send their Russians for arguing.
Those cases my credit card data was stolen, we could track it all down to Expedia.


----------



## tingo (Jun 7, 2018)

PMc said:


> Ups. Never had such, and I'd think it is extremely stupid if some restaurant or whatever would do that - because they must expect that somebody might get pissed and might send their Russians for arguing.


It probably wasn't the restaurant itself who did the tampering - probably some criminals managed to swap the payment card terminals with one who was already modified to be evil. It's like with the skimming - first they did ATM's - the ATM's soon got enough anti-tampering tech so that the machine would shut down if tampered with. Then they moved on to payment card terminals on (automated) gas stations, which resulted in that those got anti-tampering tech installed. And so the criminals has to go look elsewhere. Or simply con people into giving them money.


----------



## Spartrekus (Jun 9, 2018)

tingo said:


> It probably wasn't the restaurant itself who did the tampering - probably some criminals managed to swap the payment card terminals with one who was already modified to be evil. It's like with the skimming - first they did ATM's - the ATM's soon got enough anti-tampering tech so that the machine would shut down if tampered with. Then they moved on to payment card terminals on (automated) gas stations, which resulted in that those got anti-tampering tech installed. And so the criminals has to go look elsewhere. Or simply con people into giving them money.



good luck


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jun 9, 2018)

The only way a restaurant's card swipe can be affected is if it was an inside job. The unit's are small and sit right in front of the cashier. Since the units must be taken apart to some degree to accomplish the hardware swap, it couldn't happen without someone noticing it.


----------



## tingo (Jun 9, 2018)

You could say the same about a convenience store. Guess what, one summer they discovered that a couple of convenience stores here in Norway had the flaw that customer's cards got skimmed. They found out that the card payment terminal was compromised, and of course suspected the employees. It wasn't until they checked the surveillance videos that they found out that a criminal managed to hide above the false roof during opening hours, wait until the shop was closed, do the hardware swap, hide and wait until the shop opened, then disappear. It was in the news here, with still pictures from the video and all.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jun 9, 2018)

tingo said:


> a criminal managed to hide above the false roof during opening hours


In fact, this is the reason the only place we do not have false ceilings in our restaurants is in the bathrooms. Rarely, someone goes into ours and uses it as a bathhouse, usually homeless people.


----------



## giahung1997 (Jun 10, 2018)

Don't switch on the auto blame switch in your brain when hearing anything Microsoft. I've read enough nonsenses on Phoronix Site where is full of brainless pro-GNU Communists


----------



## roddierod (Jun 12, 2018)

Looks like Github in the enterprise...is the MS angle:
https://redmondmag.com/blogs/scott-bekker/2018/06/microsoft-acquires-github.aspx


----------



## Spartrekus (Jun 12, 2018)

roddierod said:


> Looks like Github in the enterprise...is the MS angle:
> https://redmondmag.com/blogs/scott-bekker/2018/06/microsoft-acquires-github.aspx



Somehow, I am no surprised that it happened. Linux, BSD, open source development,... are the easiest target from large Microsoft company. Microsoft, Apple and Google use the opensource community contributions, and can then make money.
Best example is Google, really, what is the contribution of Google, instead of locking user into a web-hosted-world. You never really own your data, just drop them on Google drives  First Android setup is to create a cloud / email Google account. Similar approach for Microsoft tablets, Apple (better CB card number),...

But people still buy more and more those tablets, clouds, phones,... no one really seems to avoid buying it.

Is there any chance to get a purely free, open, clean, bloat-less, reliable,... another GITHUB-like server/project host for just BSD ??


----------



## rigoletto@ (Jun 12, 2018)

Spartrekus 

You can get a VPS (or something like that) and run/store your own git service in there. There are a few web frontends avaliable from ports, inclusive.


----------



## Crivens (Jun 12, 2018)

I can only (again) point at _fossil_, which is also a distributed VCS and which already comes with a web frontend, wiki and ticket system - all in the same repository. So you can open a ticket, fix the bug, document in the wiki and close the bug ticket while on the train and then sync all this to the office master later.


----------



## PMc (Jun 12, 2018)

Spartrekus said:


> Best example is Google, really, what is the contribution of Google, instead of locking user into a web-hosted-world. You never really own your data, just drop them on Google drives  First Android setup is to create a cloud / email Google account. Similar approach for Microsoft tablets, Apple (better CB card number),...
> 
> But people still buy more and more those tablets, clouds, phones,... no one really seems to avoid buying it.



You're surprized? Well then... think!



> Is there any chance to get a purely free, open, clean, bloat-less, reliable,... another GITHUB-like server/project host for just BSD ??



Think further. Think on a wider timescale.

There once was a thing called industrial revolution. And this is when big corporations first came into being. They didn't exist before.
And why did they come into being? Because you cannot practically build your washing machine on your own. Everybody know that - but what is much more important and rarely considered is: up to the beginning of the industrial age an average person was *almost never confronted with anything they would not know how to build themselves*.
This is the actual impact of the industrial age - not the impact on economics or social life, but *on the mind*: the average person was no longer in control of their life. (Everything else, all the stuff the historians and the economics and social science people talk about, is, in my understanding, only a consequence of this).

So, when I first learned about the Internet, and I understood that by design on the Internet all participants are equal, I thought that this would give us back a great deal of autonomy: We still need the big corporations to build the VLSI dies, but everything above, everything software can be set up anywhere, by anybody.

It seems I was horribly wrong. It seems people do *not want* to be in charge. People buy the gadgets because they do not want to know what they are doing. The hardware business is mostly dead (see IBM), and the consequence should be that big corporations would be mostly dead - but the opposite is true: on the stock market they are valued higher than ever. 
But what is the inherent value, what is the product?


----------



## Crivens (Jun 12, 2018)

The value only exists because enough people believe it exists.


----------



## PMc (Jun 12, 2018)

So the value is belief, and there is no product?[1] And this is what the future of our economics is built upon? Well then... we're back in feudalism. Hail Eris!

[1] or maybe rather: the product is believe and there is no value?


----------



## rigoletto@ (Jun 13, 2018)




----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jun 13, 2018)

PMc said:


> It seems I was horribly wrong. It seems people do *not want* to be in charge. People buy the gadgets because they do not want to know what they are doing.


The people you are talking about are those looking for convenience. They don't want to be in charge of all this. That's why they're willing to pay money for these services. If they had to do everything necessary for those services to work on their own, they wouldn't do it.


----------



## Spartrekus (Jun 13, 2018)

lebarondemerde said:


> View attachment 4932



that's a good one!

What does Microsoft Github during this time???? (who really knows...) 
Just ask NSA, FBI,...


----------



## Spartrekus (Jun 13, 2018)

PMc said:


> You're surprized? Well then... think!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Basically it is likely due to a level of skills or education that could have decreased? People know less how to configure their hardware/software to work according to their needs, since they don't know they believe in Apple, Microsoft, and Google? (taking advantages of it).


----------



## usdmatt (Jun 13, 2018)

I have one project on GitHub which I considered moving although I'll probably leave it there for the time being. I also use the ports GitHub source option which I'd have to find an alternative for.

I'm not a big fan of Microsoft since Nadella though. They lost out to Google/Facebook/Amazon under Ballmer and it's clear that the primary focus since is heavily on trying to tie people into Microsoft accounts and push customers towards their cloud services. They want to be a company with x {mb}illion active users, either as subscription customers or targets of data collection and advertising, or both, rather than just a software provider. Personally I'd prefer a version of Windows that was just as OS like it used to be, rather than trying to tie every single feature into their cloud. You can't even activate an OEM copy of Office without a Microsoft account anymore (right PITA when you're installing for a customer). The free 10 upgrades and forced updates are in part because a primary function of Windows these days is to push their cloud services, and obviously if people aren't running a version that includes those cloud features, they aren't going to use them.

I assume at a minimum the following things with be phased in. Some have pretty much been confirmed -

Support for Microsoft accounts. Almost a certainty. I (hopefully) doubt they will scrap the existing account system as it would cause havok and push a huge number of people away. I'll be intrigued to see if they continue to allow GitHub accounts for new users though, or force people to use a Microsoft account. The obvious benefit for users would be that you can log into Windows with your Microsoft account (which is heavily pushed vs local accounts these days), open VS and already have access to all your code without needing to provide any GitHub details. This, as with the Microsoft account push everywhere else, helps push people towards the Microsoft ecosystem and tie them in.
Improved integration with VS. I haven't used Visual Studio for a long time but I assume they either provide a subscription service for it already, or will soon, and it will be pushed as the best way to develop open source software with the best GitHub integration. 
Pushing Azure for testing, CI, hosting of applications developed on GitHub. I don't use any advanced GitHub features like the automated testing but I expect they'll come up with a lot of reasons for the bigger GitHub customers to make use of Azure services.


----------



## giahung1997 (Jun 21, 2018)

First, I think Google is more evil than Microsoft today. People kept the bad impressions of the past about Microsoft and couldn't see how they changed now. IMHO, it's nothing wrong or worse for Microsoft to bought GitHub. I fear FOSS paranoid more than that, IT-Communists - I would call them, are basically braindead (or brainwashed) like real life Communists in my country and many country infected by them. Or perhaps a core team was paid by the big player to attack the others and a vast brainwashed teens didn't understand anything but follow the trend to feel like pro (like the online warriors force in my country, they directly paid by the Communist Party, using people's taxes to shut people's mouth up?) 

Might be Microsoft will convert the whole Github system from AWS to Azure, I hate Amazon, they're evil. It'll be a good thing.


----------



## Spartrekus (Jun 21, 2018)

giahung1997 said:


> First, I think Google is more evil than Microsoft today. People kept the bad impressions of the past about Microsoft and couldn't see how they changed now. IMHO, it's nothing wrong or worse for Microsoft to bought GitHub. I fear FOSS paranoid more than that, IT-Communists - I would call them, are basically braindead (or brainwashed) like real life Communists in my country and many country infected by them. Or perhaps a core team was paid by the big player to attack the others and a vast brainwashed teens didn't understand anything but follow the trend to feel like pro (like the online warriors force in my country, they directly paid by the Communist Party, using people's taxes to shut people's mouth up?)
> 
> Might be Microsoft will convert the whole Github system from AWS to Azure, I hate Amazon, they're evil. It'll be a good thing.



Google is definitely more evilissshh than Microsoft. But Microsoft is also very good at it. Github or skype aren't just any reasons. Github *was* really important for opensource.

I guess opensource must not fall into this world.

Look Ubuntu and Linux, it is going to be commercial soon or later. It looks to me like MS Windows, just Open Source Code leave it free, but for how long?

Ads and malwares such as SystemD, Pulseaudio, and all the stuffs are really strange things, which look more Windows, Apple or Google rather than UNIX / Free Unix.


----------



## Maxnix (Jul 15, 2018)

An appropriate custom CSS for GitHub these days  https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/07/09/nostalgic_for_that_windows_9x_look/


----------



## kpedersen (Jul 15, 2018)

I remember seeing this a while back and thinking it actually looked a lot easier to get info from than the default typical webby layout.

In many ways it actually looks like "proper" software. Luckily, even though I occasionally use GitHub, I very rarely ever see it through a web browser


----------



## P15C15 (Jul 15, 2018)

It's time to move to another platform.


----------



## Spartrekus (Jul 16, 2018)

P15C15 said:


> It's time to move to another platform.



SVN is likely a good way to go. SVN is also widely used by BSD.


----------



## kpedersen (Jul 16, 2018)

Spartrekus said:


> SVN is likely a good way to go. SVN is also widely used by BSD.



Actually, GitHub also supports SVN. Not even SVN is safe 

Perhaps keep with Git, just use a different service or host your own.


----------



## SirDice (Jul 16, 2018)

kpedersen said:


> Actually, GitHub also supports SVN. Not even SVN is safe


As far as I know they only support using a subversion _client_, it is however still a git repository, not a subversion repository.

I would suggest using devel/phabricator if you need to support subversion. 
Also see https://www.phacility.com/


----------



## Spartrekus (Jul 16, 2018)

kpedersen said:


> Actually, GitHub also supports SVN. Not even SVN is safe
> 
> Perhaps keep with Git, just use a different service or host your own.



there is no point to use Microsoft products. (= GIT)  This is not supporting open source and free software.

svn is old, but still it won't be taken over by Apple, Google, MS,... GITHUB alternatives have bloated website.


----------



## kpedersen (Jul 16, 2018)

Microsoft do *not* own Git (don't give them that satisfaction that they have tricked you).
Git is a tool developed by Linus to facilitate remote collaboration when their current VCS system (BitKeeper) started putting restrictions on them.

Likewise when Microsoft ran CodePlex (Anyone remember that shutting down? It was a great reminder that "cloud" services are flawed), just because it supported SVN, didn't mean Microsoft owned SVN.

Granted, Git is over engineered and quite bloated (I.e compared to svnserve, the Git alternative is nowhere near as elegant and it drags in most of the POSIX environment in Windows. This is proof that it is a typical GNU technology. Not from Redmond


----------



## shkhln (Jul 16, 2018)

Spartrekus said:


> there is no point to use Microsoft products.



Did you delete your GitHub account yet?


----------



## Chris_H (Jul 16, 2018)

Micro$oft is brilliant! Bill Gate$ discovered (quite by accident) long ago (M$DOS) that producing $hitty $oftware was big business. You sell M$ certification, so that once obtained you become a "Preferred Partner", and get first crack at providing your services (M$ support). This makes businesses, and provides profit for all. No one actually believes Micro$oft has survived because they make a good product. Do they? How naivé.
So why does M$ give a hoot about GitHubub? 1) Because they would have had to pay taxes on those 4+ billion dollar earnings; _investing_ those earnings. Allows them to differ those taxes until they strip GitHubub of any value they can squeeze from it. At which point, they'll kick it to the curb, and spend those $$ on something else. 2) In todays' world, "big data" is big business. There is a great deal of (user) information to be gleaned from GH -- a _lot_. Make no mistake; they'll take everything there is. It's _theirs_ now. They paid for it.
Frankly. I never cared for GH. I didn't care for their _exclusive_ policy, and attitude. I quickly dropped them, and moved to GitLab. Where they have an *in*clusive attitude, and where I, as a member, actually have control on it's future direction.

--Chris


----------



## Chris_H (Jul 16, 2018)

PMc said:


> So the value is belief, and there is no product?[1] And this is what the future of our economics is built upon? Well then... we're back in feudalism. Hail Eris!
> 
> [1] or maybe rather: the product is believe and there is no value?


This is nothing new. _Money_ has had no value since the end of the "gold standard". The value of money now, is no more than an "I'll pay you later", or "I promise to pay you this". It's just an IOU. It has no other value, any more than a nations GDP.
It's all smoke-and-mirrors, and been that way since 1930-ish. In the US.

--Chris


----------



## ralphbsz (Jul 17, 2018)

kpedersen said:


> Git is a tool developed by Linus to facilitate remote collaboration when their current VCS system (BitKeeper) started putting restrictions on them.


That statement is so simplified to be wrong.  Git was indeed developed by Linus.  It had to be developed because their previous source control system (BitKeeper) was going to refuse to serve the Linux code repository for free.  The reason for that, however, doesn't lie in BitKeeper itself, nor in its CEO Larry McVoy.  The reason for that lies in a famous spat between Linus and Andy Tridgell, the father of Samba (the SMB/CIFS file server), of rsync (the remote copy program), and one of the improvers of tcpdump (used to study network packets).  The problem occurred when Andy decided to develop an implementation of BitKeeper which was protocol-compatible with the official server.  Andy's actions were legal and ethical (he didn't violate trade secrets or licenses), but they caused Larry to go berserk and banish free software from his source code control system.  This in turn caused Linus (who can be a complete a** if he wants to, and doesn't suffer from having common decency or common sense) to go off half-cocked and attack Andy, probably out of pointless anger at making life more difficult.  This caused Andy to disengage from Linux development, and Linus to quickly over the weekend hack up a new source control system (indeed, the core of git was written in a weekend).  Unfortunately, git didn't get the benefit of a thorough requirements analysis and a good design, so today we have ...



> Granted, Git is over engineered and quite bloated ...


That is the result of Linus simply quickly making up the "how" of source control, without thinking through the tradeoffs.

I've used good source control systems (for example Perforce), and much prefer them over git.  But it's one of the laws of software that cheap (that is: free) junk drives out good engineering, like bad money drives out good money, so today we as a software community are stuck with git.  Oh well.

By the way, this discussion has little to do with GitHub and MicroSoft.  I'm just amazed at the sillyness of the folks who see this as a religious war against MicroSoft.  Instead of wasting your time tilting at windmills, maybe you should all look at it this way: I have a problem (namely how to organize and control my source code).  What is the best tool for the job?  If MicroSoft happens to give me the best tool to do my job, I will use it, happily.  If someone else gives me the best tool to do my job, I will use that tool instead.


----------



## Spartrekus (Jul 17, 2018)

shkhln said:


> Did you delete your GitHub account yet?



Just no longer use it.
svn is good replacement for given time frame.

Today you can make money and control people at the same time. Just  by invading their closed source computer. Who knows what MS do with your data? Win10 is a good move for MS.

I do not understand why to use MS Windows since you have no free source and besides you pay also 
If you pay, why not getting the source code as well?



ralphbsz said:


> That statement is so simplified to be wrong.  Git was indeed developed by Linus.  It had to be developed because their previous source control system (BitKeeper) was going to refuse to serve the Linux code repository for free.  The reason for that, however, doesn't lie in BitKeeper itself, nor in its CEO Larry McVoy.  The reason for that lies in a famous spat between Linus and Andy Tridgell, the father of Samba (the SMB/CIFS file server), of rsync (the remote copy program), and one of the improvers of tcpdump (used to study network packets).  The problem occurred when Andy decided to develop an implementation of BitKeeper which was protocol-compatible with the official server.  Andy's actions were legal and ethical (he didn't violate trade secrets or licenses), but they caused Larry to go berserk and banish free software from his source code control system.  This in turn caused Linus (who can be a complete a** if he wants to, and doesn't suffer from having common decency or common sense) to go off half-cocked and attack Andy, probably out of pointless anger at making life more difficult.  This caused Andy to disengage from Linux development, and Linus to quickly over the weekend hack up a new source control system (indeed, the core of git was written in a weekend).  Unfortunately, git didn't get the benefit of a thorough requirements analysis and a good design, so today we have ...


who wrote the first git code during this above-mentioned weekend?


----------



## kpedersen (Jul 17, 2018)

ralphbsz said:


> If MicroSoft happens to give me the best tool to do my job, I will use it, happily.



I do and I don't quite agree with this one. Sure, Microsoft may happen to at some points give the best tool for a job but history has always repeated itself and shown it is short lived and Microsoft will always aggressively monetize whilst inadvertently reducing the usefulness of the software by adding restrictions. Sometimes lifespan and stability of a tool is much more important than it being the "best".

Now I am sure you know many of their EEE schemes but it is also the new trend of "developer licenses" and "control" that they want to exert on corporations. I feel it is due diligence in the workplace to actively avoid dealing with all companies like Microsoft when at all possible (and preferably go open-source even when the solution is slightly less effective).

Lets see what they do with GitHub. After all, there is a reason why they paid some billions for it and I can guarantee it is not to make my and your life easier


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 17, 2018)

I understand both of your points and am always torn about the need to write code for Microsoft products at times. I've recounted the story of being screwed by Microsoft many years ago and it has left a bad taste in my mouth since. Needing to create software for a Windows machine is always an irritation. It's always more difficult and clunky and I always and we always feel like Darth Vader is looking over our shoulders as we do it. 

I never, EVER understand why I watch the local weather and see the weather man with a computer showing Windows on it. Why oh why would anyone write a professional, scientific program to run on Windows? It's as if CERN started using XBox.


----------



## ralphbsz (Jul 17, 2018)

Spartrekus said:


> svn is good replacement for given time frame.
> ...
> Who knows what MS do with your data?


You do understand that MicroSoft can read anything that is stored on open source SVN repositories?
And that MicroSoft was able to read anything stored on open source GitHub repository even before they bought it?

If you want to store your source code such that MicroSoft (and all the other companies you don't like) can't get to it, then don't open source it, and store it only on servers you control.



> If you pay, why not getting the source code as well?


Sometimes, closed source software ends up being a better solution than open source.  It depends on the problem.



> who wrote the first git code during this above-mentioned weekend?


Linus; he wrote the first version of git all himself, mostly in one weekend.  He may have many other shortcomings as a person, but he is a very good coder.


----------



## SirDice (Jul 17, 2018)

drhowarddrfine said:


> I never, EVER understand why I watch the local weather and see the weather man with a computer showing Windows on it. Why oh why would anyone write a professional, scientific program to run on Windows? It's as if CERN started using XBox.


What makes you think the systems they use to create forecasts on and the system they use to project pretty pictures during the newscast is the same? The pictures and animations you see during the newscasts are really nothing more than a glorified Powerpoint presentation.


----------



## ralphbsz (Jul 17, 2018)

kpedersen said:


> I do and I don't quite agree with this one. Sure, Microsoft may happen to at some points give the best tool for a job but history has always repeated itself and shown it is short lived and Microsoft will always aggressively monetize whilst inadvertently reducing the usefulness of the software by adding restrictions. Sometimes lifespan and stability of a tool is much more important than it being the "best".


And in spite of MicroSoft's obvious goal of making money off of its customers, their product is sometimes the best choice.  In particular looking at it in the long term.  Not always.  Saying that "Microsoft is always a bad deal" is so wrong, it is ridiculous.  On the other hand, saying "always buy your software (or service) from Microsoft" is also completely ridiculous.  On a case-by-case basis, you have to make an intelligent evaluation, without religious dogma.



> I feel it is due diligence in the workplace to actively avoid dealing with all companies like Microsoft when at all possible (and preferably go open-source even when the solution is slightly less effective).


I use oodles of open source software, both at home and at work.  I agree that many times, open source is the most appropriate solution.  But not always.  We were discussing source control systems above, and a few years ago, I deliberately bought a 10-user license with fully paid annual support from Perforce for our group at work.  That's in spite of the fact that there are ample free solutions (cvs, git, subversion, ...) and the fact that my employer at the time had two other commercial source control systems that were available for free within the company (CMVC and ClearCase).  We spent a week studying the pro's and con's of the various systems, and decided that spending money on proprietary software was the best solution, which in the long run saved us money.  We did not go into the decision with the religious dogma that we must buy from Microsoft, or that we must use free software, but we looked for the best solution.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Jul 17, 2018)

This whole GitHub/Microsoft thing is just really relevant at this first moment to people using the paid service to have hidden repositories (aka proprietary or _secret_). I would not trust any proprietary/_secret_ code hosted by MS (and probably anyone) unless they were a part of the project too.

Later, depending of what decisions they do (like messing everything, quite possible since we are talking about MS), the thing can potentially affect everyone.

If I had anything relevant on GitHub (that would be free) and I would keep my local copy (or on another service) independently of who own the thing.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 17, 2018)

SirDice said:


> What makes you think the systems they use to create forecasts on and the system they use to project pretty pictures during the newscast is the same?


Cause I worked in television for 10 years and that local weatherman is an acquaintance of mine.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Jul 17, 2018)

drhowarddrfine said:


> Why oh why would anyone write a professional, scientific program to run on Windows?



This is not just professional/scientific software (IMO), it is more like why would anyone write *any* non-desktop software (or something related with something they need and just do exist on Windows) for Windows?

I mean, it is not about "I don't like MS/Windows" but all major available OSes (AIX, Linux, *BSD, MacOS, Solaris and sons, etc.) are quite similar and would be rather easier to port between them if necessary than from Windows, what is incompatible with everything (including Windows).

Look at the Munich tentative to move on to Linux. Failed for several reasons (most probably management) but they hit a ton of problems related with critical (infrastructure) software they write for Windows, and would be rather expensive to re-write.


----------



## Chris_H (Jul 17, 2018)

drhowarddrfine said:


> I never, EVER understand why I watch the local weather and see the weather man with a computer showing Windows on it. Why oh why would anyone write a professional, scientific program to run on Windows? It's as if CERN started using XBox.


They (the weather people) didn't choose that computer. Micro$oft _gave_ them that computer, for _publicity_.
Fear not. They don't run anything important on it. Just keep notes, records, and stuff on it. 
Oh, and it's the same for computers in movies. Companies bid for the opportunity to have _their_ products "showcased" in the film(s). Same for cars, and other products that the brand name is visible.

--Chris


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 17, 2018)

Chris_H said:


> They (the weather people) didn't choose that computer. Micro$oft _gave_ them that computer, for _publicity_.


No, they use actual software on that but you may be correct about the display of the Windows logo; it's too prominent. I'll have to ask him next time I see him.


----------



## Crivens (Jul 17, 2018)

Also keep in mind that the program on that box likely only does a database query to a database filled by a cluster of different beasts. At least that is what climate simulations tend to do. But the difference between weather and climate calculations is not only size.


----------



## Chris_H (Jul 17, 2018)

drhowarddrfine said:


> No, they use actual software on that but you may be correct about the display of the Windows logo; it's too prominent. I'll have to ask him next time I see him.


Well. I'll say this. If Micro$oft _isn't_ paying them. _Why_ isn't _their_ logo on those computers, instead. 

--Chris


----------



## Spartrekus (Jul 22, 2018)

There is no point to use MS Windows or similar MS applications, because of only one reason:
- There is no source code to be available.

Munich Is the city of Microsoft. There is a beautiful building there. Actually, MS offer real really good jobs there.



kpedersen said:


> I do and I don't quite agree with this one. Sure, Microsoft may happen to at some points give the best tool for a job but history has always repeated itself and shown it is short lived and Microsoft will always aggressively monetize whilst inadvertently reducing the usefulness of the software by adding restrictions. Sometimes lifespan and stability of a tool is much more important than it being the "best".
> 
> Now I am sure you know many of their EEE schemes but it is also the new trend of "developer licenses" and "control" that they want to exert on corporations. I feel it is due diligence in the workplace to actively avoid dealing with all companies like Microsoft when at all possible (and preferably go open-source even when the solution is slightly less effective).
> 
> Lets see what they do with GitHub. After all, there is a reason why they paid some billions for it and I can guarantee it is not to make my and your life easier



Why Linus must have had  to code *himself* Git. There are many coders, he would have asked, many would have helped.


----------



## ShelLuser (Jul 23, 2018)

Spartrekus said:


> There is no point to use MS Windows or similar MS applications, because of only one reason:
> - There is no source code to be available.


Sorry, but that's just an extremely narrow minded and unrealistic view of the world. Things don't work this way. In fact, I can't help get the impression that you're borderline trolling right now.

Riddle me this: what advantage does the availability of the source code provide for an end user who isn't a programmer and has never ever compiled any piece of source code in their entire life? Simple answer is _absolutely nothing_.

Most people who enjoy open source software do so for one very simplistic reason: because it's free. It doesn't cost them any money to obtain it and they can use it. But this has _nothing_ to do with the availability of the source. Before open source got more mainstream we used to have freeware (and shareware): software which was made available free of charge, which could often be used fully free of charge (sometimes within a few limitations) and which usually was closed source. And no one couldn't care less.

Even so... fact of the matter is that there is plenty of commercial software out there for which there simply isn't a suitable or usable open source counterpart.

A very good example of this would be Max; a visual programming language fully aimed at providing multimedia based solutions. The fun part is that the project eventually split between an open source variant called Pure Data and a commercial project called Max/MSP.

Both projects still exist today and both definitely have their place. _However..._ Pure Data, although still a very impressive project, doesn't even come close anymore to the rich feature set which Max provides. Both links point to their respective websites, you'll see.

So what do you think which product would be preferred by an audio or multimedia engineer? Better yet: do you really think they'd care about the availability of the source code? Of course they don't. What they care for is to know if the product will support their hardware, if they can develop their own programs to be used in their setups, if the product supports the latest (MIDI/ASIO) standards, stuff like that.

There are dozens of examples in which closed source is basically blowing the open source solutions out of the water. And there are plenty of people who happily pay money for that as well. They don't care about source code and all of that political stuff, they care about getting a tool to help them get a job done and for that they pick that tool which works best for them.

Sometimes that can be an open source solution, sure enough, but in many professional markets closed source solutions still reign supreme. And for very good reasons.


----------



## alexseitsinger (Jul 23, 2018)

Boy, there's a lot to digest here.

One of the concerns regarding data privacy, and therefore trust in these companies, is simply about our rights being slowly rolled away from us. It's easy to think that because our credit cards aren't being stolen, and our bank accounts are the same, that there was nothing bad that happened. This isn't always the case. Sometimes what goes wrong is that we can't control the software we've decided to depend on. Sometimes it's because we were used by a company to earn money without our knowledge, and without any benefit to ourselves. While this isn't the end of the world on it's own, its a step in the wrong direction to some. The "religious dogma" is an attempt to oppose and redirect this to something more acceptable for everyone. When this "religious dogma" doesn't exist, our rights may continue to roll away further and further, until they are are gone, completely. Perhaps "religious dogma" is expressed too extremely, but without it, we wouldn't have a place to start from.


----------



## jpierri (Jul 23, 2018)

Zirias said:


> As for the "value" .. this is something I can't understand either, but it looks like the basic idea is the following (often seen in the past even with online services that never made even a tiny bit of profit): If a platform has a large and active user base, the thought seems to be there HAS to be a way to generate large profits, even if nobody knows how  (which reminds me a bit of South Park).


It may well be the same way of thinking behind the idea "being a celebrity means earn big bucks".


----------



## PMc (Jul 23, 2018)

ShelLuser said:


> Riddle me this: what advantage does the availability of the source code provide for an end user who isn't a programmer and has never ever compiled any piece of source code in their entire life? Simple answer is _absolutely nothing_.



No. If your not a programmer, you can always learn to program, or hire a programmer.
This is a matter about *freedom*, about being able to execute one's own decisions, about not being subdued to the decisions of others whom you have no influence upon.



> Most people who enjoy open source software do so for one very simplistic reason: because it's free. It doesn't cost them any money to obtain it and they can use it. But this has _nothing_ to do with the availability of the source. Before open source got more mainstream we used to have freeware (and shareware): software which was made available free of charge, which could often be used fully free of charge (sometimes within a few limitations) and which usually was closed source. And no one couldn't care less.



Thats a very different matter.
In Your above question, You could as well ask: whats advantage has the availability of Einstein's Relativity to a person who cannot handle higher mathematics? Absolutely nothing.
But we have a scientific tradition, based on the fact that nobody is perfect: findings are made public, so they can be discussed, reflected and further improved, by those who understand to do so.
This is not about an individual getting something for free or not. This is about mankind as a whole. And the fact that prob. 99% of mankind are not willing or not able to participate does not matter - scientific freedom is nevertheless considered important.

Now, when it comes to software, there is obviousely a conflict at some point, concerning what is a finding and what is workmanship: among participating to the knowledge-pool of mankind and keeping trade secrets for individual enrichment - while at the same time, at least in capitalism, people need to earn money to live. Have fun with that.


----------



## tingo (Jul 23, 2018)

ShelLuser said:


> Riddle me this: what advantage does the availability of the source code provide for an end user who isn't a programmer and has never ever compiled any piece of source code in their entire life? Simple answer is _absolutely nothing_.


Perhaps you look at this too simply? (I would use the word "narrowly", but that would be an attempt at irony, so I won't)
At least in my experience (which might be different from yours) I see a lot of information exchanges like this on mailing lists and fora for open source software:
user A: reports on some problem, with some help (s)he provide detailed error messages / description too. Doesn't know how to fix the problem.
user B: says, that reminds me of this bug report; it has the same error messages. And someone already provided a patch (source code) / workaround; it is here.
user A: great, what is a patch / how do I apply this workaround?
user (C,D,E): explains how to apply the patch / workaround
user A: I had to try many times before I understood how to do it, but I finally did, and it is working. Thank you.

So, even if user A might not be a programmer (s)he got the problem solved, and did not have to wait for a binary patch fix release from some proprietary vendor.


----------

