I still have a JavaOne tshirt in the back of my closet that says,
In a World Without Fences, Who Needs Gates? In a World Without Fences, Who Needs Gates?Shows you how much he and windows was loved. Today’s microsoft is forced to play nice.
it's been replaced with instructions for using their own gh cli tool (which, however, is also free software)
for example on any github project page, https://github.com/username/projectname, click on the "code ↓" button in the top right; the "local" tab on the left has a "clone" tab with 'https' and 'github cli' subtabs. the git@github.com: url you can use with standard git has been removed
i think this is a change within the last month
embrace, extend, and extinguish is alive and well
Git can push over HTTPS, too.
whether i'm logged in in my browser has nothing to do with whether my ssh client has access to an authorized private key
Clearly, more people were confused by the original than outraged about the current implementation... I don't even recall the change being made.
Long ago they used to push SSH as the "right" way to pull repositories (I still almost exclusively use SSH), but their change to recommending HTTPS instead by default is by now quite old: it's been the case for many years.
Other related things have changed more recently: Github doesn't allow git:// urls anymore (but HTTPS still allows anonymous checkouts), and when doing authenticated HTTPS, you now need to provide a token instead of your password.
The git:// protocol, to my recollection, doesn't support authentication at all. If you've ever been able to push to git:// URLs on Github, it's news to me.
but it seems like my original comment was incorrect in a couple of different important ways, and i appreciate people having pointed that out
https://web.archive.org/web/20180115003453/https://github.co...
???
you can clone Github projects and move them on every other git repository you want
if Github removed the support for git, Github would be dead in a week.
Not only because git is literally in their name, but because every programmer tool that deals with code (editors, IDEs, etc.) has embedded support for git, the protocol, not git the Github version of the protocol.
Remove interoperability and you killed the golden goose.
At MS are not that stupid.
but because they waited until last year, removing that interoperability did not significantly affect their dominance as a way of accessing the internet
FTP died long ago as a protocol, it wasn't killed by some corporations trying to embrace and extend, but by better protocols (SFTP, SCP, HTTP(S) etc.)
also FTP created a lot of issues behind NAT
wrt nat i would say that nat created a lot of issues with ftp
let me rephrase it.
FTP behind NAT had a lot of issues.
But the protocol was never designed to be accessed by a WEB browser, that were limited to read only access.
The best way to access FTP is through an FTP client.
I don't necessarily agree with the new wave of browser security at all costs, like HTTPS everywhere, but FTP clients are far from being hard to find.
> there is still a substantial information that is only accessible through ftp
can you point me to an example?
I haven't encountered that problem since the end of the 90s. The only instance I can recall is upgrading the firmware of home routers/modems using TFTP.
The good thing about Larry is as shitty as his bag of tricks is, it doesn't change much. What people hated about Microsoft is that they innovated on fucking other companies over and putting them out of business.
There would not have been 'a different Microsoft'. It was Gates and Ballmer and friends that did that. Paul Allen got sick and then split with Microsoft to do pretty much completely different things for the rest of his life. Not that people have good things to say in Seattle about his behavior as landlord.
And looking at the success of Visual Studio Code and GitHub, people actually fall for it.
It turns out that playing good citizen and profiting off an easy to use cloud is better business today than desktop is.
Despite this and more importantly despite his reputation in business and the often laughable products MS produced, his tremendous philanthropy really changed my perspective on him.
In a world where there are mega-billionaires, he's my least unfavourite. He's doing good things with his money like eradicating malaria and funding bleeding edge climate tech. He's pretty outstanding wrt how he spends his money.
Speaking of malaria, after googling for 3 minutes it seems he spent around 2B$ on it. Does it really matter? Yes and no. Maybe it had impact on people's lives, but given Gates' net value is 100B$+, giving away a billion or two does not matter. It will not affect his quality of life in any significant way. He could give away a few dozen billions more and still will spend rest of his life living in luxury that I could only dream off. Sure, better to fight malaria than buy another yacht, but still, it's easy decision to make when you have that much money.
My 2 mins of googling came up with more like 3.6B$ on malaria, but even 2B$ is a shit-ton of money. I certainly haven't donated 2% of my net value to malaria (and it's only on the order of 1/10000 of his!).
Malaria rates are down around 30% since 2010, thanks in part to Gates. He's likely saved thousands to hundreds of thousands of lives.
Malaria is just one part of his philanthropy. I'd love to see the numbers for Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk. It would be great to all billionaires follow suit with this kind of "easy decision".
I'm not saying he shouldn't outsource his videos. What I'm saying is that this looks more like a professionally made commercial (advertising his personal brand). I'm pretty sure it cost O(hours) of his time (consider even getting to the set - you can see this is a professional set, so probably in some studio; I also doubt this was done in one take given how there are other actors around including the skating Santa Clauses). All in all, it really feels artificial and dishonest. What kind of person would even come up with idea of creating such a video in the first place?
There are somewhat diminishing returns spending money on philanthropic causes: if he were to spend 30 rather than 3 billion the result wouldn't be ten times better. I'm happy he's trying to make the world a better place while still keeping an eye on the money being used efficiently.
Why does the 100k matter if the 3 billion don't?
Is it not enough for you that he went out of his way to improve other people's lives? Would it only satisfy you if his lifestyle suffered?
> it's easy decision to make when you have that much money
How do you know? Have you ever been in that position?
How did he went out of his way?
> How do you know? Have you ever been in that position?
I don't think snark is necessary here; probably there are no 100B$+ users on HN.
But it's not hard to extrapolate from where am I. I have comfortable tech job, I could easily give away few thousands bucks to some charitable cause just to show off (and my quality of life wouldn't change). Would that automatically make me a good and trustworthy person? I think the answer here is no. I also guess if for some reason my net worth went up a few orders of magnitude, I could also give few orders of magnitude more. Would then I be a good and trustworthy person?
He spent a considerable amount of his free time.
> I have comfortable tech job, I could easily give away few thousands bucks to some charitable cause just to show off (and my quality of life wouldn't change).
Yes, you could. Do you?
> Would that automatically make me a good and trustworthy person? I think the answer here is no.
It wouldn't. But also because there are no good and bad people. There are good and bad actions. I use Linux and absolutely hate what Bill Gates was doing wrt the whole free software ecosystem. I still commend him for his charity work.
> I also guess if for some reason my net worth went up a few orders of magnitude, I could also give few orders of magnitude more.
Yes, you could. Would you though?
We have a pretty open internet today, or at least MS is no longer the biggest threat to it so maybe this was just another MS-bungled project lol.
Jokes aside, utmost respect to the people who have fought for an open internet over the years.
Sun tried to be "cool" but was really just a money loss machine and now Java and MySQL is the property of we-will-audit-you-Oracle and Mr I-will-sue-people-when-I-need-another-yacht-Ellison.
G had a motto of "do no evil", that motto is long gone. I've always disliked their handling of the Android platform (the handset manufucaturer/carrier dominance over application stores back in the J2ME days was horrible, Google's quest for marketshare let that go on for a few more years and allowed for some bad fragmentation for developers).
And this was just the start, their "AI-handles-support-so-we-don't-need-to-talk-to-humans" combined with accounts being suspended willy-nilly just leaves people stranded (anybody remember how an indie guy making an Stadia exclusive game was shut out of his Google account?) and speaking of stadia, what's Googles cancelled product body-count up to now?
Apple has had some pros on the privacy side but they've stumbled even there, and apart from that they've been quite a heavy-handed player with a clear my-way-or-the-highway attitude (vs Epic,Spotify,etc).
Amazon busting unions, fleecing people on AWS and copying popular products on the marketplace needs no more mentions.
The Ubers, Spotifys,etc of the world might've made things cheaper and more streamlined but there's been at a cost of distinct monetary pressure on drivers,musicians,etc.
Facebook facilitating genocides (Rohynga), election fraud (US/UK) and general lax privacy (Cambridge Analytica).
MS might have gotten worse in terms of privacy and ads(start menu ads,wtf?), but in general they've mostly kept to making money and actually supporting developers and opensource. NPM/Github costs might be fractional for MS but would've probably landed the rest of us another SourceForge (remember the spyware they added to make money? That was probably what got GH off the ground more than anything) because we've not yet sorted a way for developers and distribution to get paid for our "free" contributions.
In a world without walls, who needs Gates?