Thread: Microsoft buys GitHub, is this a threat to open-source

On 06/04/2018 10:10 AM, Michael Nolan wrote:
> Microsoft has bought GitHub for $7.5 billion, is this a threat to the 
> open source community?

No but it does show why using non open source platforms for open source 
projects is an inherently bad idea.

/me stumbles off to the Postgres slack channel which is quite a bit 
larger than the irc channel.

JD

> --
> Mike Nolan


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Michael Nolan <htfoot@gmail.com> writes:
> Microsoft has bought GitHub for $7.5 billion, is this a threat to the open
> source community?

A fair question, but one that seems entirely off-topic for the Postgres
lists, since we don't depend on GitHub.  (And that's a thing for which
I'm very glad today.)

            regards, tom lane

On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> No but it does show why using non open source platforms for open source
> projects is an inherently bad idea.

Joshua,

   Sourceforge seems to be out of favor, too,  so are there any open source
platforms that provide services that sourceforge and github do?

Rich

On 4 Jun 2018, at 18:31, Rich Shepard <rshepard@appl-ecosys.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> No but it does show why using non open source platforms for open source
>> projects is an inherently bad idea.
>
> Joshua,
>
>  Sourceforge seems to be out of favor, too,  so are there any open source
> platforms that provide services that sourceforge and github do?

Both GitLab and BitBucket are commonly suggested.

Neither seems great, but when push comes to shove "they'll do". :)

For people that are ok with standing up their own servers, there are more
options.  Gitea (Open Source GitHub clone) is pretty good:

  https://gitea.io

It's also very efficient resource wise (unlike GitLab), so can run effectively
on tiny hardware.  Even Raspberry Pi level can do a decent job for small scale
stuff.

Naturally, anyone with team-sized needs would run it on appropriate hardware. ;)

+ Justin

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

On 06/04/2018 10:31 AM, Rich Shepard wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 
>> No but it does show why using non open source platforms for open source
>> projects is an inherently bad idea.
> 
> Joshua,
> 
>    Sourceforge seems to be out of favor, too,  so are there any open source
> platforms that provide services that sourceforge and github do?

Gitlab which can also be self hosted, the one GNU does (I don't recall 
the name).

JD


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc
***  A fault and talent of mine is to tell it exactly how it is.  ***
PostgreSQL centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://postgresconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:

> On 06/04/2018 10:31 AM, Rich Shepard wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>>> No but it does show why using non open source platforms for open source
>>> projects is an inherently bad idea.
>>
>> Joshua,
>>
>>   Sourceforge seems to be out of favor, too, so are there any open source
>> platforms that provide services that sourceforge and github do?
>
> Gitlab which can also be self hosted, the one GNU does (I don't recall
> the name).
>

I find gitLab to be a pretty good alternative. However, I don't think
there is any need to panic. While it is possible (likely?) that MS will
change the terms and conditions which work in favour of maintaining
their profitability, which may cause some problems for particularly
large open source projects, nothing is going to happen over night or so
quickly that projects won't have an opportunity to find an alternative.

There is an alternative perspective to seeing MS purchase of Github
which is a little more positive.

The challenge for open source is that at some point, there is a cost
associated with storage, collaboration and sharing of source code. This
cost has to be paid for by someone. While we can hope for philanthropic
donations and gifts to pay this cost, it probably isn't a sustainable
solution. If on the other hand, there is a profitable business which can
maintain profitability while incorporating open source support as part
of core business, then we may have a more sustainable and reliable
solution.

I am no MS fan and have little experience in the MS suite of products,
but I think most would have to acknowledge that MS has started to
embrace open source far more than it did in the past. Consider for
example their VS Code editor or the fact Windows now comes with a Bash
shell and more integrated support for Linux. I suspect that we will see
little change in Github in the short term and provided MS can maintain
long term profitability, we may see little long-term change as well.

Of course, this only holds for the very relaxed definition of open
source. RMS would/will be using this as a clear example of MS destroying
open source and the weakness of the general open source movement when it
fails to emphasise freedom. For a strict open source definition which
emphasises freedom rather than just 'openness', Github would likely
already be ruled out due to their restrictive terms and conditions
regarding ownership and licenses. However, the subtleties of RMS's
concerns are often misunderstood and incompatible with our tendency to
focus on short term, low friction solutions.

For now, I'll just take a leaf out of 'the Guide', grab my towel and not
panic!

Tim

--
Tim Cross

On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 08:44:37PM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> I have few projects there - Orafce, plpgsql_check, and pspg. I hope so
> these projects are well protected by BSD licence - and distributed
> redundant nature of git. I hope so there is not reason for panic this
> moment. I have not a big data in non git sources - issues, and others.

Not sure myself if there is any need to worry about this stuff (which is
not related to Postgres lists as there is no dependency to github,
yeah!), still one thing that anybody hosting projects on remote places
should do anyway is to take automatic backups of what they have on those
places and keep a copy of them locally.  This way, you have an exit door
if something happens to the place where the code is located.  I do so
for all my stuff on github for example.  And git makes that really easy
to do.
--
Michael

On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 10:22:02 +0900
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
[...]
> I do so for all my stuff on github for example.

How do you backup your projects issues on github? Using the API with some
loops?

> Microsoft has bought GitHub for $7.5 billion, is this a threat to the open
> source community?


Only to the extent that GitHub was a threat before this. They never
embraced Open Source!

They cynically portrayed themselves as the developer's best pal when,
in fact, they are/were nothing more and nothing less than another
commerical software company!

I was planning to start using GitLab before this announcement, but the
change will not affect my  decision one bit - it had been made anyway!

At least GitLab have respect for the Open Source ethos.

I just wish all the whingers would STFU! They got exactly what was on the tin!


Pól...






> Mike Nolan

>   Sourceforge seems to be out of favor, too,  so are there any open source
> platforms that provide services that sourceforge and github do?


In a word: GitLab!


Pól...



> Rich

On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 11:54 +0100, Paul Linehan wrote:
> Only to the extent that GitHub was a threat before this. They never
> embraced Open Source!
> They cynically portrayed themselves as the developer's best pal when,
> in fact, they are/were nothing more and nothing less than another
> commerical software company!
> I was planning to start using GitLab before this announcement, but
> thechange will not affect my  decision one bit - it had been made 
> anyway!

Sourceforge!  They're entire platform is Open Source, they support git,
and they integrate with a variety of common open source packages.

https://sourceforge.net/
-- 
Meetings Coordinator, Michigan Association of Railroad Passengers
537 Shirley St NE Grand Rapids, MI 49503-1754 Phone: 616.581.8010
E-mail: awilliam@whitemice.org GPG#D95ED383 Web: http://www.marp.org

On 07/06/2018 13:56, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 11:54 +0100, Paul Linehan wrote:
>> Only to the extent that GitHub was a threat before this. They never
>> embraced Open Source!
>> They cynically portrayed themselves as the developer's best pal when,
>> in fact, they are/were nothing more and nothing less than another
>> commerical software company!
>> I was planning to start using GitLab before this announcement, but
>> thechange will not affect my  decision one bit - it had been made
>> anyway!
> Sourceforge!  They're entire platform is Open Source, they support git,
> and they integrate with a variety of common open source packages.
Who hasn't missed sourceforge ? or ... freshmeat while we'are at it :)
>
> https://sourceforge.net/


-- 
Achilleas Mantzios
IT DEV Lead
IT DEPT
Dynacom Tankers Mgmt

> Of course, this only holds for the very relaxed definition of open
> source. RMS would/will be using this as a clear example of MS destroying
> open source and the weakness of the general open source movement when it
> fails to emphasise freedom.


He's already said that GitHub isn't appropriate for free software -
sensu Stallman.

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/discuss-gnustep/2015-12/msg00168.html


> For a strict open source definition which
> emphasises freedom rather than just 'openness', Github would likely
> already be ruled out due to their restrictive terms and conditions
> regarding ownership and licenses. However, the subtleties of RMS's
> concerns are often misunderstood and incompatible with our tendency to
> focus on short term, low friction solutions.


Of course it would be against his principles - it's just another
closed-source software company.

Why people are complaining and threatening to jump ship just because
it was bought by another entity whose only concern and priority (by
**law**) is the bottom line, is completely beyond me!


GitLab are also commercial, but I believe that they have the right
blend of commercial and Open Source - you can't expect a company to
host millions of projects on nothing but fresh air!


From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitLab

> In June 2018, the acquisition of competitor GitHub by Microsoft[24][25] caused a migration of over 250,000 projects
toGitLab[26]. 


I just don't understand why people think Microsoft was any different
from GitHub before the acquisition?




Pól...


> Tim

On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 13:46 +0200, Thiemo Kellner wrote:
> Zitat von Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com>:
> > Who hasn't missed sourceforge ? or ... freshmeat while we'are at it
> > :)
> I am sticking to sourceforge still. I never understood what people  
> made leave it. 

New-and-shiney!  I've been involved in Open Source for ~30+ years;  the
lunging after the new-and-shiney, and these days: let's build the most
impossibly complex tool chain and build system possible - is exhausting
[not to mention, for many smaller projects, even trying to
find|identity the "official" repository+branch]. The tool-set mania has
certainly diminished my level participation; there are so many barriers
before getting to the point.

I am grateful that Sourceforge has been there, steadily making
improvements.  Their current platform is very nice.

-- 
Adam Tauno Williams <mailto:awilliam@whitemice.org> GPG D95ED383
openSUSE, a LINUX desktop for humans who need to get work done.

Zitat von Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com>:

> Who hasn't missed sourceforge ? or ... freshmeat while we'are at it :)

I am sticking to sourceforge still. I never understood what people  
made leave it. I was investigating a bit if I should move on to github  
too but I do not remember what prevented me from doing so with respect  
to github. It remains an obscure gut feeling that it is not doing the  
right Thing with the data. I am sad freshmeat was discontinued  
independently from sf or github or what so ever.

cheers

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

On 07/06/18 13:46, Thiemo Kellner wrote:
> Zitat von Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com>:
> 
>> Who hasn't missed sourceforge ? or ... freshmeat while we'are at it :)
> 
> I am sticking to sourceforge still. I never understood what people made
> leave it.

For many people, this is why sourceforge died:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceForge#Project_hijackings_and_bundled_malware
-- 
Vik Fearing                                          +33 6 46 75 15 36
http://2ndQuadrant.fr     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 11:57:06AM +0200, Jehan-Guillaume (ioguix) de Rorthais wrote:
> How do you backup your projects issues on github? Using the API with some
> loops?

I personally don't care much about this part.  As long as the code
survives..
--
Michael

On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 16:04 +0200, Thiemo Kellner, NHC Barhufpflege
wrote:
> Zitat von Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com>:
> > For many people, this is why sourceforge died:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceForge#Project_hijackings_and_bu
> > ndled_malware
> Wow! I missed that completely. This is grave.

That was also in 2015.  The entire platform has been overhauled since
then.

On 06/07/2018 06:54 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 16:04 +0200, Thiemo Kellner, NHC Barhufpflege
> wrote:
>> Zitat von Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com>:
>>> For many people, this is why sourceforge died:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceForge#Project_hijackings_and_bu
>>> ndled_malware
>> Wow! I missed that completely. This is grave.
> 
> That was also in 2015.  The entire platform has been overhauled since
> then.

Well as of January at any rate:

https://sourceforge.net/blog/introducing-the-new-sourceforge/

Foresight is a good thing:

https://sourceforge.net/p/forge/documentation/GitHub%20Importer/



-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

Zitat von Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com>:

> For many people, this is why sourceforge died:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceForge#Project_hijackings_and_bundled_malware

Wow! I missed that completely. This is grave.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

On 2018-06-07 12:47, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 07/06/18 13:46, Thiemo Kellner wrote:
>> Zitat von Achilleas Mantzios <achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com>:
>> 
>>> Who hasn't missed sourceforge ? or ... freshmeat while we'are at it 
>>> :)
>> 
>> I am sticking to sourceforge still. I never understood what people 
>> made
>> leave it.
> 
> For many people, this is why sourceforge died:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceForge#Project_hijackings_and_bundled_malware

Yeah.  The Wikipedia page mentions mentions 2015, however DICE (the new 
owners
of SourceForge at the time) introduced it a few years earlier.

This is one of the earlier calls to action about the problem:

   
http://blog.gluster.org/how-far-the-once-mighty-sourceforge-has-fallen/

SourceForge were *really* pissed at me for writing that.  As in, whinge
to my employer about me, threaten to get law people involved, etc.

They didn't get very far thankfully. :)

Anyway, we seem to be fairly off topic now...

+ Justin