Microsoft Is Said to Have Agreed to Acquire Coding Site GitHub

[Chris_H]

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]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Alex Seitsinger]

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]

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]

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]

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.