Funny how it's "Microsoft GitHub" when something bad is being said about it. But it's just "GitHub" for positive things.
“In London today, further advancements were made in <blah> technology, showing the strength of English academia.”
Our son is on the honor roll
That's why people talk like that. There's the GitHub the world loved, then there's the Micro$oft version, which we're starting to see problems with.
I think "GitHub" is the old good place, Microsoft Github, is the problematic version we're going to see more of.
GitLab is still a very viable alternative but there is just very little reason to want to leave GitHub. The vast majority of devs either don’t care about or enjoy copilot. It’s just a small number of HN whiners who make most of the noise on the topic.
If GitHub (M$) continues this path of stomping on licenses/copyright of the people who made it great in the first place (i.e repo authors/contributors), I'm definitely gone.
All of them have been rebuilt IMO.
1. https://virtuallyfun.com/2020/05/22/examining-windows-1-0-he...
Sophisticated enough to understand the utility of Github, but too stupid to understand their own biases? The idea that someone is faulty in their understanding is an uncharitable take. The benefit of (MSFT's) history, is you can learn from it, or ignore it and claim that those who have are being irrationally ornery.
> Oh stop it.
Microsoft is one of many indifferent profit-seeking tyrants. I will never stop pointing out how positive characterizations are, at best, misinterpreting their intent. I'm much more likely to believe any feature is a stepping stone that MSFT plans to leverage later to extort its own users. This plan may or may not come to fruition, which is incidental.
As opposed to all of the other companies that aren’t seeking profits?
One of many is right in the quote.
The obvious difference is how the power in an industry has been wielded. Railroad barons were the closest historical equivalent, imo.
Again, this is about historic context. They wielded power widely enough (monopolistic practices, predatory acquisitions, etc) that they earned the distrust. Every move, however magnanimous is carefully weighed as to how it can be monetize at a maxim (now, without drawing Govt scrutiny).
Yes. Personal attacks are unwarranted here.
> the post you're defending is worse?
I'm not sure what you mean by "worse" here.
> Anyone who has known Microsoft from back in the day knows attributing anything positive to them is likely an error
I agree with this fully.
Neither is hyperbole.
> Neither is hyperbole.
So we agree? Personal attack and unwarranted are a correct characterization. That's nice to hear.