On Du, 12 apr 20, 10:52:08, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > > But in a more general sense... > > - the snotty way to put it is that they have the Midas touch > (just it's not gold things turn into at their touch, alas). > If you want to know more about the Midas touch, do read on > the strange story of Steven Elop, Nokia and Microsoft. I am a strong believer of Hanlon's razor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor > - the more philosophical way would be to go philosophical about > cultural hegemony, framing and dominance of discourse. Because > you won't convince me that Microsoft shelled out $7B of their > investor's money due to sheer Goodness of their Hearts. So far it seems Microsoft's intention is to use Github to host its own Open Source software while also making a profit from it. Nothing wrong with any of that. Could Github disappear at some point due to bad management? Sure it could, just as well as with any other owner. There is no guarantee that it would have done better without Microsoft. Could Microsoft at some point change hosting policies or even close it down completely? Sure they can, and they would be fully within their rights as owner trying to make a profit. Would that make like harder for projects hosted there? Sure it will, they might need to migrate, and not only the repositories themselves, but also issues, pages, etc. Will the software disappear due to that? Unlikely in my opinion, even if only due to git's distributed nature (local checkouts are in general full clones). The acquisition by Microsoft also served as a reminder that no one platform is guaranteed to exist forever. It also helped increase the popularity of Gitlab (and others) which in addition to a hosting platform is also (mostly) free software that can be deployed on own infrastructure (as Debian does). That was actually quite a good outcome :) Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature