hi,

Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> On 20/08/2021 11:45, Jim Henderson wrote:
> > (But yes, Microsoft does now own Github)
>
> Which is a good thing, in a way. While I'm not a great fan of Microsoft,
> they do seem to be keeping their fingers out of interfering with github,
> which makes perfect sense when you think of it.
> ...
> Microsoft bought it because they saw it as a good investment as it had
> become a popular destination for OSS projects and their own OSS host
> (CodePlex) wasn't doing nearly as well (and in fact they since shut it
> down).
>
> GitHub (and sites like it) lives and breathes on its *reputation*. While
> it has some neat features (like build automation) the basic technology
> (Git) is portable and as such there's not a lot preventing a project
> just moving somewhere else. Microsoft are well aware of that fact and
> would have to be insane to do anything that would jeopardize their $7bn
> investment in GitHub as almost all of that value is tied up in 'good will'.

while I do wear glasses, could not find rose-tinted ones to fit..  :-)

<https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/29/microsofts-github-has-become-magnet-for-thorny-issues-like-riaa.html>

if Microsoft had wanted to be "benign", or even simply "straight", they could
have, for instance, endowed a foundation set up for the purpose, or paid cash.
instead (so I read) the deal was done in shares, making GitHub now a
"stakeholder" interested in Microsoft's future.

and what about <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitHub_Copilot>?  will not,
particularly for younger, new users (<30 yrs), a "recommended", quick,
menu-selected "solution" to some bug/coding problem lead, in the end, to greater
homogeneity, less individual "expression"?  (anyone looking at the world with
open eyes must appreciate that industrial-scale mono-cultures, whether
agri-sector or social, tend to damage the very (eco)systems which they exploit
-- for "stakeholder"s advantage, only)

two cents and all that.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message