> But then again “the SV hipster development ecosystem”. Who is that exactly?
That was a reference made by user tomato.
But if you prefer my point of view, those that fill up SV coffees or live in other parts of the globe trying to replicate the SV culture and are naive to the point to give Apple and Google human attributes, while believing they are any different from a profit oriented corporation.
Debian developer here, speaking only for myself: while Debian doesn't like proprietary software any more than before, the change we've seen from MS has been dramatic.
MS now ships Debian for Azure through a collaboration with Debian and credativ, and also in the Windows Store running through the Windows Subsystem for Linux. They've hosted a Debian cloud sprint, sponsored DebConf, and engaged in good-faith substantive ways that don't only benefit their platforms. Of course, they care most about their platforms, but that's fine.
In the other direction, Debian does ship fully open source software (what Debian would call DFSG-free) with Microsoft as author.
Debian isn't playing favorites, of course, and is similarly working with Amazon and Google (among other partners of all sizes) in areas of shared interest.
Stop bashing Google without any proofs. They do respect privacy and don't share data you elect not to. In fact, their take out tool was released in 2009 or something, way before GRPR made others do it too.
Uhhhh your doing this backwards. Prove that google is protecting my privacy not the other way around.
The default state for people needs to be DISTRUST of corporations (and governments) that they do not have a direct financial relationship with (when you aren't giving them cash).
That's part of the problem: we have no idea what Google is doing with our data, so we have no idea if they are respecting privacy - assuming there is even a definition for such a thing.
The only answer is to simply gather less data, or be more explicit about when you do. And Google isn't great at either.
I believe that Google's theory is what mine would be in similar circumstances, why sell the data to a business when you can use that data to build a competing business.
There is a YouTube update that's been pending on my Android for 1-1/2 years. I haven't agreed to it because YouTube decided that it needs access to my contacts. IMO, if Google needs to know who I communicate with in order to watch videos, they don't respect my privacy at all.
"Old" schoolers have and will likely have for ever that evil 90s vision of MS. However it is changing a bit in that people too. They still may be evil, but at least the look more modern (opensource, new technology, using/contributing to Linux etc).
However the important thing (for MS) here is new people. If you come into the scene now or in a few years you only get to know the "new" masked MS image. Yes, they are still doing dubious stuff but is all under the hoods, buried by layers of hype, cloud, linux and fireworks.
Rebranding some big stablished company with that kind of history is something that takes a long long time.
Microsoft isn't acquiring Github out of the goodness of it's heart, they want something of value from it. What is that, and is it compatible with what made Github useful?
I won't stick around to find out, my time is too valuable and the competition is strong. For me, Github doesn't really have any distinctive features except that is was the biggest, and so most convenient. I suspect most people and organizations will be in the same situation.
> Microsoft isn't acquiring Github out of the goodness of it's heart, they want something of value from it. What is that, and is it compatible with what made Github useful?
What is that? I think its ownership of the huge amount of computer programs (and not to mention the associated metadata of authors and their professional network). The editor and the client provide a continuous stream of samples ready to be drawn from the world.
I believe its in the owners best interest to keep this golden goose of continuously increasing source of computer programs in good health.
The thing that I didn’t understand at first was why did MS gave up codehub (Google had Code, FB never pushed phabricator that hard) only to acquire GitHub later?
Companies that use github, both as teams on the main website and with the enterprise version, pay 9 dollars per month per user. If Microsoft can get it's enterprise customers to trust the product enough to pay that sort of a price this will be a very profitable acquisition for Microsoft. If anything, I don't think github would've ever been able to acquire enterprise customers had microsoft not made this acquisition.
As one of those "old schoolers" I don't view MS as any less evil than they used to be.
But they aren't the only 800 pound gorilla in the room - open source, google, apple, amazon have all taken a big chunk out of what MS was.
What prevents MS (or any one who acquires GitHub) from pulling a sourceforge? Well nothing prevents them, and I can't name someone who wouldn't want to monetize it -- that latter fact is going to be what kills the product/project.
This is a furphy. GitHub is already monetized -- it is highly profitable, selling fee-paying plans to corporations. MS's major customer is corporations. Of course they're not going to do a SourceForge because this is a traditional acquisition where the purchaser has recognised that GitHub's current monetization ties in well with their existing business model, and they gain value in the acquisition from it building their reputation with business as the go-to place for corporate cloud. They have no interest in damaging the corporate value they gain by fiddling with the consumer and open source side.
You know wikipedia exists. Or people like me who will harp on on how privacy standards that are somehow acceptable now would be something inconceivable in 90's.
This was absolutely my first thought too. I've developed for work over the last year on Windows. It's dark patterns to suck up data and ads now. There are ads on the login screen!
This is in regards to one Microsoft product: Windows. Reality is, they're not focused on Windows anymore, but I do agree it would be nice if they took away all that telemetry nonsense and allowed people to have better control over updates. To be completely fair under Linux I get updates weekly more or less, but they're just not forced upon me to install them.
To be completely fair under Linux I get updates weekly more or less, but they're just not forced upon me to install them.
Also, in many years my amount of downtime due to Debian's unattended-upgrades is exactly 0. The same cannot be said of Windows updates.
I'm still hoping Microsoft see the light on all the telemetry and forced update nonsense before the Windows 7 cut-off in a couple of years. The trouble is, I can't see it happening as long as Nadella is at the top, and I can't see that changing as long as the big enterprise customers who aren't subject to that kind of nonsense are propping up the share price.
> in many years my amount of downtime due to Debian's unattended-upgrades is exactly 0. The same cannot be said of Windows updates.
A few years ago I turned on my windows machine to see the dreaded upgrade. Being in a rush I went to another machine and the exact thing happened. I blew my top and replaced all windows with Ubuntu. I would have preferred Macs but I couldn't afford the Apple tax (high prices and not working on my existing HW).
> Also, in many years my amount of downtime due to Debian's unattended-upgrades is exactly 0.
That's nice for you, but if you use any non-open software or software not covered by the package repo then there's a fairly good chance you'll see downtime after an upgrade of your linux distro.
Windows was completed with Windows 7. Everything after that is just churn. Consider for a minute that Windows doesn't need to be redone every 3 years anymore.
If you're on latest Ubuntu (or derivatives) since 16.04 at least you've been getting security track upgrades (through the default config of unattenfed-upgrades) forced on you.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you get default out of the box with Windows as well?
On Ubuntu you can install it on every computer in your house and still pay zero dollars and zero cents. LTS releases let you use the same core packages for the next 5 years.
Your OS can be configured to pull updates not only from official Canonical sources or those blessed by them but also any sources you please including your own. You can put up your own packages and use them just for you or promote them to all of planet earth. If you don't like a particular package or a particular version you can not update just that package although you might be unable to update others if they require the new package in question.
If you feel strongly about it you can fork and support old versions indefinately or take the package in your own direction.
Further you can even fork the entire ecosystem and not even call it Ubuntu anymore.
On Windows home you can't even decide not to update. You have to pay $99 per computer for that privilege and might have to pay again if you update say the motherboard. The windows store is only for apps that MS designates at its privilege and supposing you agree to give MS almost 1/3 of your revenue for a privilege it can revoke at its descretion at any time.
You can't fork Edge if you don't like how it works and if you could you wouldn't have the right to distribute such let alone create an alternative store/source usable by all for people to install/update such a creation.
You have pretty much misunderstood the entire point of open source software.
MS heavily respects privacy and mandates that every employee go through privacy and GDPR training every year. And remember, MS’s business is not rooted in exploiting user data to sell them ads. Replacing “they” in your sentence with Google or Facebook would be much more appropriate.
Indeed. I'm always a little surprised at how readily developers recommend VS Code, given the lack of privacy guarantees and Microsoft's recent track record on both telemetry and quietly overriding past user settings with updates.
The Silicon Valley hipster development ecosystem does not have a problem with how Google respects privacy.
What a spectacular example of faulty generalization and false dilemma.
> The Silicon Valley hipster development ecosystem does not have a problem with how Google respects privacy.
I don’t think that’s the case anymore.
But then again “the SV hipster development ecosystem”. Who is that exactly?
> But then again “the SV hipster development ecosystem”. Who is that exactly?
That was a reference made by user tomato.
But if you prefer my point of view, those that fill up SV coffees or live in other parts of the globe trying to replicate the SV culture and are naive to the point to give Apple and Google human attributes, while believing they are any different from a profit oriented corporation.
The ggp claim was re: the open source community.
Debian developer here, speaking only for myself: while Debian doesn't like proprietary software any more than before, the change we've seen from MS has been dramatic.
MS now ships Debian for Azure through a collaboration with Debian and credativ, and also in the Windows Store running through the Windows Subsystem for Linux. They've hosted a Debian cloud sprint, sponsored DebConf, and engaged in good-faith substantive ways that don't only benefit their platforms. Of course, they care most about their platforms, but that's fine.
In the other direction, Debian does ship fully open source software (what Debian would call DFSG-free) with Microsoft as author.
Debian isn't playing favorites, of course, and is similarly working with Amazon and Google (among other partners of all sizes) in areas of shared interest.
4 replies →
Please, don't talk as you are spokesperson for anyone but yourself.
Stop bashing Google without any proofs. They do respect privacy and don't share data you elect not to. In fact, their take out tool was released in 2009 or something, way before GRPR made others do it too.
Uhhhh your doing this backwards. Prove that google is protecting my privacy not the other way around.
The default state for people needs to be DISTRUST of corporations (and governments) that they do not have a direct financial relationship with (when you aren't giving them cash).
I don't think that much of this holds water but it exists and the picture isn't one of "were standing up to defend your privacy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_concerns_regarding_Goo...
It's insidious how Google has redefined "privacy" from "what's yours is yours" to "what's yours is ours, as long as we don't share it."
Microsoft is moving fast along the same path.
2 replies →
That's part of the problem: we have no idea what Google is doing with our data, so we have no idea if they are respecting privacy - assuming there is even a definition for such a thing.
The only answer is to simply gather less data, or be more explicit about when you do. And Google isn't great at either.
12 replies →
I believe that Google's theory is what mine would be in similar circumstances, why sell the data to a business when you can use that data to build a competing business.
There is a YouTube update that's been pending on my Android for 1-1/2 years. I haven't agreed to it because YouTube decided that it needs access to my contacts. IMO, if Google needs to know who I communicate with in order to watch videos, they don't respect my privacy at all.
3 replies →
So they don't share data with the government? Tell us more.
I think it is a long term goal.
"Old" schoolers have and will likely have for ever that evil 90s vision of MS. However it is changing a bit in that people too. They still may be evil, but at least the look more modern (opensource, new technology, using/contributing to Linux etc).
However the important thing (for MS) here is new people. If you come into the scene now or in a few years you only get to know the "new" masked MS image. Yes, they are still doing dubious stuff but is all under the hoods, buried by layers of hype, cloud, linux and fireworks.
Rebranding some big stablished company with that kind of history is something that takes a long long time.
Microsoft isn't acquiring Github out of the goodness of it's heart, they want something of value from it. What is that, and is it compatible with what made Github useful?
I won't stick around to find out, my time is too valuable and the competition is strong. For me, Github doesn't really have any distinctive features except that is was the biggest, and so most convenient. I suspect most people and organizations will be in the same situation.
>I suspect most people and organizations will be in the same situation.
I suspect the vast majority of people won't be bothered to move their stuff unless MS pulls a Skype.
1 reply →
>Microsoft isn't acquiring Github out of the goodness of its heart, they want something of value from it. What is that
If they bundle the pro version of github with office 365 - just like with Teams, the 365 bundle becomes even more compelling for organizations.
2 replies →
> Microsoft isn't acquiring Github out of the goodness of it's heart, they want something of value from it. What is that, and is it compatible with what made Github useful?
What is that? I think its ownership of the huge amount of computer programs (and not to mention the associated metadata of authors and their professional network). The editor and the client provide a continuous stream of samples ready to be drawn from the world.
I believe its in the owners best interest to keep this golden goose of continuously increasing source of computer programs in good health.
The thing that I didn’t understand at first was why did MS gave up codehub (Google had Code, FB never pushed phabricator that hard) only to acquire GitHub later?
1 reply →
Companies that use github, both as teams on the main website and with the enterprise version, pay 9 dollars per month per user. If Microsoft can get it's enterprise customers to trust the product enough to pay that sort of a price this will be a very profitable acquisition for Microsoft. If anything, I don't think github would've ever been able to acquire enterprise customers had microsoft not made this acquisition.
Maybe they want to finally put a bullet through the skull of the zombie that is Team Foundation Server.
1 reply →
As one of those "old schoolers" I don't view MS as any less evil than they used to be.
But they aren't the only 800 pound gorilla in the room - open source, google, apple, amazon have all taken a big chunk out of what MS was.
What prevents MS (or any one who acquires GitHub) from pulling a sourceforge? Well nothing prevents them, and I can't name someone who wouldn't want to monetize it -- that latter fact is going to be what kills the product/project.
This is a furphy. GitHub is already monetized -- it is highly profitable, selling fee-paying plans to corporations. MS's major customer is corporations. Of course they're not going to do a SourceForge because this is a traditional acquisition where the purchaser has recognised that GitHub's current monetization ties in well with their existing business model, and they gain value in the acquisition from it building their reputation with business as the go-to place for corporate cloud. They have no interest in damaging the corporate value they gain by fiddling with the consumer and open source side.
4 replies →
Yes, all I'm saying is: _some_ people; and only a _little bit_.
Or even more old school that remembers the original MS that put BASIC on my Commodore.
Or bundling GW-BASIC with MS-DOS. That might be the reason I got into software.
1 reply →
> you only get to know
You know wikipedia exists. Or people like me who will harp on on how privacy standards that are somehow acceptable now would be something inconceivable in 90's.
Some old schoolers did not have any issue using Windows and related Microsoft tech.
This was absolutely my first thought too. I've developed for work over the last year on Windows. It's dark patterns to suck up data and ads now. There are ads on the login screen!
This is in regards to one Microsoft product: Windows. Reality is, they're not focused on Windows anymore, but I do agree it would be nice if they took away all that telemetry nonsense and allowed people to have better control over updates. To be completely fair under Linux I get updates weekly more or less, but they're just not forced upon me to install them.
To be completely fair under Linux I get updates weekly more or less, but they're just not forced upon me to install them.
Also, in many years my amount of downtime due to Debian's unattended-upgrades is exactly 0. The same cannot be said of Windows updates.
I'm still hoping Microsoft see the light on all the telemetry and forced update nonsense before the Windows 7 cut-off in a couple of years. The trouble is, I can't see it happening as long as Nadella is at the top, and I can't see that changing as long as the big enterprise customers who aren't subject to that kind of nonsense are propping up the share price.
> in many years my amount of downtime due to Debian's unattended-upgrades is exactly 0. The same cannot be said of Windows updates.
A few years ago I turned on my windows machine to see the dreaded upgrade. Being in a rush I went to another machine and the exact thing happened. I blew my top and replaced all windows with Ubuntu. I would have preferred Macs but I couldn't afford the Apple tax (high prices and not working on my existing HW).
> Also, in many years my amount of downtime due to Debian's unattended-upgrades is exactly 0.
That's nice for you, but if you use any non-open software or software not covered by the package repo then there's a fairly good chance you'll see downtime after an upgrade of your linux distro.
1 reply →
Windows was completed with Windows 7. Everything after that is just churn. Consider for a minute that Windows doesn't need to be redone every 3 years anymore.
I’d concur from a user interface perspective it really peaked at Windows 7.
Windows 10 is almost usable with a keyboard and mouse. It’s much better than 8 was.
1 reply →
If you're on latest Ubuntu (or derivatives) since 16.04 at least you've been getting security track upgrades (through the default config of unattenfed-upgrades) forced on you.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you get default out of the box with Windows as well?
On Ubuntu you can install it on every computer in your house and still pay zero dollars and zero cents. LTS releases let you use the same core packages for the next 5 years.
Your OS can be configured to pull updates not only from official Canonical sources or those blessed by them but also any sources you please including your own. You can put up your own packages and use them just for you or promote them to all of planet earth. If you don't like a particular package or a particular version you can not update just that package although you might be unable to update others if they require the new package in question.
If you feel strongly about it you can fork and support old versions indefinately or take the package in your own direction.
Further you can even fork the entire ecosystem and not even call it Ubuntu anymore.
On Windows home you can't even decide not to update. You have to pay $99 per computer for that privilege and might have to pay again if you update say the motherboard. The windows store is only for apps that MS designates at its privilege and supposing you agree to give MS almost 1/3 of your revenue for a privilege it can revoke at its descretion at any time.
You can't fork Edge if you don't like how it works and if you could you wouldn't have the right to distribute such let alone create an alternative store/source usable by all for people to install/update such a creation.
You have pretty much misunderstood the entire point of open source software.
3 replies →
how are they forced? you can turn them off
can't with Windows 10
1 reply →
And my update settings.
I understand the need for security, but updates shouldn't break my computer either.
MS heavily respects privacy and mandates that every employee go through privacy and GDPR training every year. And remember, MS’s business is not rooted in exploiting user data to sell them ads. Replacing “they” in your sentence with Google or Facebook would be much more appropriate.
Uninformed post of the year, with a side order of whataboutism, congrats. Who said i trust G or FB?
Indeed. I'm always a little surprised at how readily developers recommend VS Code, given the lack of privacy guarantees and Microsoft's recent track record on both telemetry and quietly overriding past user settings with updates.