On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 04:54:59AM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
[cut]
>
> All the same, a relatively young, very fast-growing company like GitHub
> might well be expected to burn through cash (thus wiping out any profit
> that would otherwise have been made) at an eye-watering rate. However,
>
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 at 04:54:59 +0100
Mark Rousell wrote:
> My guess is that they liked Nadella more than they liked Microsoft and its
> history.
They just liked the money. And they must not have liked the chances of
having such a big corporation as an enemy.
On 05/06/2018 18:26, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> They only did it because they had to.
Oh absolutely. I just don't see that as a necessarily bad or evil thing.
Necessity is a driver of business and of business behaviour.
>> I predict that they won't muck up GitHub. The fact is
>> that GitHub
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 at 12:06:25 +0100
Mark Rousell wrote:
> On 05/06/2018 07:19, Alessandro Selli wrote:
>> On 04/06/2018 at 18:40, Mark Rousell wrote:
>>> On 04/06/2018 17:02, salsa-...@tut.by wrote:
Personally I see this as a part of "embrace open source" strategy to
kill open source.
On 05/06/2018 13:56, Lars Noodén wrote:
> Actions speak louder than words.
They do. It will be interesting to see how their "stewardship" of GitHub
works out.
>> Their revenue going forward depends on playing nicely with open source.
> Their revenue does not yet depend on helping FOSS, but it
On 06/05/2018 02:06 PM, Mark Rousell wrote:
> On 05/06/2018 07:19, Alessandro Selli wrote:
>> On 04/06/2018 at 18:40, Mark Rousell wrote:
>>> On 04/06/2018 17:02, salsa-...@tut.by wrote:
Personally I see this as a part of "embrace open source" strategy to kill
open source.
#
On 05/06/2018 07:19, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> On 04/06/2018 at 18:40, Mark Rousell wrote:
>> On 04/06/2018 17:02, salsa-...@tut.by wrote:
>>> Personally I see this as a part of "embrace open source" strategy to kill
>>> open source.
>>>
>>> # Serge
>>>
>> I can't see that it would be in
On 04/06/2018 at 18:40, Mark Rousell wrote:
> On 04/06/2018 17:02, salsa-...@tut.by wrote:
>> Personally I see this as a part of "embrace open source" strategy to kill
>> open source.
>>
>> # Serge
>>
>
> I can't see that it would be in Microsoft's interest to kill open source.
Really? Are
On 06/04/2018 06:53 PM, wirelessd...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 Jun 2018, at 10:02, Jimmy Johnson wrote:
On 06/03/2018 06:01 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
For years, I've been politely telling representatives & users of open source
projects (Void Linux, many others) 'Hey, you might want to reconsider
> On 5 Jun 2018, at 10:02, Jimmy Johnson wrote:
>
>> On 06/03/2018 06:01 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
>> For years, I've been politely telling representatives & users of open source
>> projects (Void Linux, many others) 'Hey, you might want to reconsider
>> outsourcing your entire source code repos to
On 06/03/2018 06:01 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
For years, I've been politely telling representatives & users of open source
projects (Void Linux, many others) 'Hey, you might want to reconsider
outsourcing your entire source code repos to GitHub, and consider
instead deploying instead one of many
I deleted my linkedin account a few years ago. Almost immediately I
started receiving invitations from some people that I only knew
peripherally. Why would they care? None of the people I knew well ever
said anything about my leaving. It didn't take long to write a procmail
recipe to send all
On 04/06/2018 17:02, salsa-...@tut.by wrote:
> Personally I see this as a part of "embrace open source" strategy to
> kill open source.
>
> # Serge
>
I can't see that it would be in Microsoft's interest to kill open source.
Aren't they the largest single contributor on GitHub?
--
Mark
Is this a case of mass US based industrial espionage now?
It's been said that Microsoft makes a great deal of monies from Linux
with patents in play.
I see this as a perfect solution for Microsoft to go after every man and
his dog using github to see if there are any patents to win more money
Quoting Mark Rousell (mark.rous...@signal100.com):
> I really can't see anything different about project autonomy before or
> after GitHub acquisition by Microsoft. The issue you elaborate on below
> is certainly real but Microsoft's acquisition of GitHub doesn't seem
> likely to make any
Personally I see this as a part of "embrace open source" strategy to kill open source. # Serge
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
On 04/06/2018 16:14, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Mark Rousell (mark.rous...@signal100.com):
>
>> To play devil's advocate, what can go wrong?
> Autonomy.
I really can't see anything different about project autonomy before or
after GitHub acquisition by Microsoft. The issue you elaborate on below
Quoting Mark Rousell (mark.rous...@signal100.com):
> To play devil's advocate, what can go wrong?
Autonomy.
The Void Linux distribution is, according to Steve Litt, currently in
semi-chaos because GitHub, Inc. recognises no other user other than the
founder as having authority over the
On 04/06/2018 14:07, Mark Rousell wrote:
> it would even give them a root into the resurgent mainframe market.
Doh...
s/root/route/
--
Mark Rousell
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
On 04/06/2018 02:01, Rick Moen wrote:
> For years, I've been politely telling representatives & users of open source
> projects (Void Linux, many others) 'Hey, you might want to reconsider
> outsourcing your entire source code repos to GitHub, and consider
> instead deploying instead one of many
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 at 11:49:47 +0200
KatolaZ wrote:
> The most probable outcome is that a new alternative will possibly
> emerge. And no, gitlab is not the one, IMHO.
Why not?
I do think a more modern solution would be a distributed p2p repository
based on a keychain, but a classic,
On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 06:01:58PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> For years, I've been politely telling representatives & users of open source
> projects (Void Linux, many others) 'Hey, you might want to reconsider
> outsourcing your entire source code repos to GitHub, and consider
> instead deploying
For years, I've been politely telling representatives & users of open source
projects (Void Linux, many others) 'Hey, you might want to reconsider
outsourcing your entire source code repos to GitHub, and consider
instead deploying instead one of many actually open source, self-hosted
workalikes
23 matches
Mail list logo
