Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by lawl | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

lawl

Real backstory: https://news.microsoft.com/2018/06/04/microsoft-to-acquire-g...

View on HN

The GCP move was decided upon months before Microsoft acquired GitHub[1].

[1]: https://venturebeat.com/2018/04/06/why-and-how-gitlab-abando...

No doubt, but the Microsoft acquisition must have pushed the priority of the move through the roof.

Negative. I work at GitLab. I can assure you that GitHub getting acquired did not have any bearing on the speed at which we made this migration happen. It's been in the works for a long time, and in none of the meetings I've attended has anyone said "Github now is owned by Microsoft, we need to get on GCP FASTER."

Someone should have then. On the other hand, you only talk about the speed of the migration, could also be an overly-specific denial and you've known about a potential acquisition before.

Call me a tinfoil nutjob, I still don't buy it and would move away from azure too in that situation.

Why does this dumb story keep getting posted on every GitLab thread? GitLab started the move to GCP way, way before the acquisition from MS happened. They are not related.

> Why does this dumb story keep getting posted on every GitLab thread?

I suspect it's because some people really like microsoft and are personally offended that a customer left.

Or it's just the penchant across Internet forums for the 'real truth.' Reddit is overflowing with it. People often like to believe they have knowledge that few others possess, special insight. They're not fooled by the mainstream media, they see around corners and through the guise, they've got it figured out. There's a massive culture for that today, which is where the Alex Jones, flat earth, etc. popularity boom comes from. Those people used to be a lot more isolated, now they can link up and spread their special insider knowledge, which leads to every story having an alternate 'real truth.'

>I suspect it's because some people really like microsoft and are personally offended that a customer left.

I would do the same thing. Not sure what you're implying. Now get back to hobby and improve pmos (pls).

It's less about getting away from Microsoft and more about getting closer to Google: https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/09/gitlab-raises-20m-series-c...

While other commenters have criticized the "hidden truth" angle of this comment, I'd like to point out that some insiders may have foreseen GitHub aligning with MS a little earlier.

I had a hunch, way before Microsoft announced the acquisition, that if GitHub was ever sold it would be to MS, as it aligns with their outreach to open source developers. At the same time, they were quite active on, and happy to endorse GitHub, which is a kind of cross-promotion large corporations only do when they're stakeholders of the smaller company (or at least have some contract defining the terms and legal consequences related to this PR activity)

Microsoft became and are extremely active on Github, but were they really uniquely endorsing it among large tech companies? AFAIK Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Netflix all run all their open source stuff through Github. Even Apple for the open source stuff they actually want people to use.

The move has nothing to do with Microsoft acquiring GitHub.

Do you have any evidence backing that up? It seems unlikely that, say, Microsoft would endanger a large and growing business by artificially sabotaging GitLab in a way which would be quite obvious.

Who cares about evidence and "what's more likely". Would you host your product on your competitor's servers? I'm not saying that's why they switched, but from a business perspective it makes sense to remove that risk.

What’s the actual risk? Once you’re off in conspiracy land, why not worry that they’ll pay off a supplier or something? In the real world, blowing an Azure contract or SLA would cost more in lost business than they paid for GitHub entirely.

I can't think of any good reasons to keep your product hosted at the hands of your biggest competitor.

Yes there are examples out there but I think this is a very different situation where proprietary technology is a main advantage.

Any reason to suggest otherwise is dwarf by this reason alone. Good move and logical.

Github being owned by Microsoft has 0 relevance for any competent technical organization.

Saying anyone who cares about Github now being owned by Microsoft is incompetent is borderline ad-hominem.

We have seen embrace-extend-extinguish from MS before. Even if you believe they've changed there's no reason to label everyone else as incompetent.

That's not what I'm saying. The news has 0 relevance to teams, whether those teams care or not.

Github was a for-profit organization losing massive amounts of money with stalled development and weak features compared to competitors. It's only major asset was the large community. It now has a many more resources to stay around long-term and finally start building better products. Your data is also 1-click away from being exported and git is already distributed meaning every developer has a complete clone.

What possible issue is there to worry about?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com