Hello, GitHub - <AUTHOR> https://natfriedman.github.io/hello/ <comment><USER2> Since this is the newest big thread, it can take the front-page slot for now. The big previous discussions are:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17221527](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17221527)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17227286](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17227286)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm going to be a bit contrarian to "the sky is falling" posts on HN and say: I think Microsoft is handling this really well.

1) They've acknowledged the skepticism around the acquisition.

2) They've expressed their commitment to keep GitHub an independent platform (like they did with LinkedIn.)

3) Nat Friedman, although I was not familiar with him prior to this, seems like an ideal candidate to run GitHub.

This, overall, is giving me a more positive impression of Microsoft. Now what remains to be seen: Will they follow through on these commitments? Will they continue to listen to the community?

<comment><USER4> I agree, my biggest concerns are:

1\. What is happening to Atom? I have tried VS code and don't really like it due to the difference in how the 2 systems are designed to work (Atom being more "plugins are king", VSCode being more "kitchen sink included by first- party"). I'd hate to see my favorite editor lose it's major backing. If MS makes a commitment to continue to develop Atom, or they work with someone else to "transfer" development over to them in a way that's not half-assed, it would go a LONG way toward solidifying the trust they are trying to build (at least to me).

2\. How will other companies who are hosting on GitHub _react_ to this? Will Facebook/Google/Apple start pulling their code from GitHub? Will we go back to having to learn how to contribute to each project individually?

There's definitely major benefits for diversity in this area (meaning not having the vast majority of projects on one platform), but I'm hoping we (as developers in whole) don't throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

GitHub has by most accounts helped bring in a renaissance of open source software. It's never been easier to contribute to FOSS at any level, and I'm hoping we don't lose that as everyone diversifies where they host their source code...

<comment><USER5> Fellow Atom user here. According to Lee Dohm, Open Source Community Manager at GitHub, "Atom remains key to GitHub. Our product roadmap is set, and the team will continue all of their work." [0]

[0] [https://github.com/atom/atom/issues/17454#issuecomment-39442...](https://github.com/atom/atom/issues/17454#issuecomment-394421141)

<comment><USER6> In a buyout, always be sensitive to situations where promises of status quo come from someone who is not in control of the situation.

Quite common for new owners to let old employees make promises they can't keep and then make them disappear and change plans.

<comment><USER7> This.

Not saying that Microsoft has a plan to 'embrace extend extinguish', but if they did, this is how they would go about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So I'm kind of depressed about this. I loved GitHub enough that I paid for a subscription without needing it and have all of my public work on it and my investment in OSS is quite significant.

People saying that it is easy to migrate don't know what they are talking about. GitHub isn't just Git hosting, but a social network of open source developers and projects. You can't migrate stars, issues with comments and the history of PRs, all linked to the profiles of their authors.

And sure you can self-host GitLab, I pushed for it at my previous employer and works great for on premises deployments, but it's not the same for OSS if the community you care about isn't there.

That said I am glad to see Nat Friedman as the new CEO. This gives me some hope for its future.

<comment><USER9> You make a good point about the _just-move-to-Git[whatever]_ being the entrenched social aspect of many repos! I can't imagine if, say the day comes when developers flee GH en-masse, it will be at all easy to retain the discussion history behind repos.

<comment><USER10> There is an API [https://developer.github.com/v3/issues/](https://developer.github.com/v3/issues/)

It could be not trivial to map those data into the new destination, especially if they don't have an API too.

This is how to programmatically create a new issue on GitLab [https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/api/issues.html#new- issue](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/api/issues.html#new-issue) and in Bitbucket [https://developer.atlassian.com/bitbucket/api/2/reference/re...](https://developer.atlassian.com/bitbucket/api/2/reference/resource/repositories/%7Busername%7D/%7Brepo_slug%7D/issues#post)

<comment><USER11> Gitlab already support this, no need to go with home grown bit banging.

[https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/import/github.html](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/import/github.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have been familiar with Miguel's work since the good old GNOME and Mono days (pre-Microsoft and even pre-Xamarin) and familiar with Miguel and Nat's work since the Xamarin and Microsoft days and I really must say that GitHub could have got somebody far far worse on the executive level than Nat (and ScottGu above him, ofcourse, due to the same kind of personality).

Nat can be best described as a OSS geek gone CEO, and thus I can't imagine a better executive within Microsoft to lead GitHub besides him. In fact, when I heard the first rumors and Chris not wanting to run operations anymore I immediately thought of Nat to run GitHub when Microsoft was crazy enough to buy it.

Seems I was right :)

</comment><comment><USER13> What nobody is really commenting on is how huge of an opportunity this is for Microsoft to reinvent itself in the eyes of the developer community.

If Microsoft can somehow manage to gain trust from Github users, which is very possible and desirable for them, it will make Azure more compelling in many ways than Amazon as a cloud computing platform.

After Amazon's acquisition of Cloud9, Microsoft is the first big company to try something really bold and inventive in cloud computing. Github can prioritize making code deploy to all clouds AND make it especially appealing for customers to choose Azure, as there will exist amazing opportunities for end to end product optimizations here. Seems really smart for me, and given that Microsoft is really hell bent on changing people's negative opinions about them, they have all the right incentives to make Github even more awesome than it already is.

<comment><USER14> The Microsoft bashing is painful. I also wonder about outcomes like that, positive ones for Microsoft, GitHub the platform and GitHub the community.

So much negativity!

<comment><USER15> The negativity comes from MS being MS. Many here have seen what they did in the past and what they do to this day. They have lobbied so hard in Munich that they are going to abandon Linux and go back to Windows. Great open source love all around!

Also, as long as Windows, Office and Azure are closed, I cannot take all this "we love Open Source" stuff seriously. It is a big tech-marketing and recruiting vehicle, but nothing more. I am not saying, they should open those, I am saying that they are not an OS company and therefore should stop pretending.

<comment><USER14> Their sales is doing what sales does: try to find a method to sell licenses. That has nothing to do with company philosophy but the percentage the sales person get. That is capitalism but nothing special to Microsoft.

And Limux was a troubled child anyway (users, it organization and political leadership all along).

I would have loved Limux to succeed, but unfortunately it did not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> While Microsoft has a lot of nice marketing and really good PR, they are still a corporation that makes money off selling SQL server licenses and office suite and increasingly by harvesting your user data.

Microsoft is addicted to your data. They siphon it off whenever they get the chance, often times by default and without your knowledge or consent. Even their cli Linux tools have """analytics""".

This will never change, no matter what slick marketing materials they produce, what PR fluff they have, or shills that shill for them.

The simple fact is I cannot trust Microsoft, especially to not touch code in my private repositories. I am sure they just want some "metrics" and to do some "analytics" on all the private data held in GitHub.

To use GitHub now, is to trust the same company who works hand in hand with the government and the NSA to make sure you stay insecure and known to agencies who just want to run some "metrics" and do some "analytics" on you.

No thanks.

<comment><USER17> just a friendly reminder most cli tools you use today that run primarily against a cloud service publish analytics explicitly or implicitly.

you can't trust MS to not read your code? do you trust amazon to host your binaries? or database? or google cloud? or do you trust no one and rent your own cage and keep it locked?

aws has an entire cloud for US gvoice. they work hand in hand with government requests. google is very tightly coupled as well. do you host entirely on foreign providers?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm split on this one.

I lived through Microsoft's dark ages, when the victory of open source was still hanging by a thread. The reason we're seeing a softer Microsoft is that they lost, they were forced to change. And the open question is what they learned in the process.

On the other hand, they're producing pretty decent software these days; dotNet Core, TypeScript & VSCode just to name a few solid projects. Open source, no less; imagine that back when monkey boy was running the show, literally.

But then I keep hearing about shady Linux licensing deals and endless privacy intrusions over in Windows land.

Tricky indeed, I think I'm going to leave my code in there for now and give them a chance to redeem themselves.

<comment><USER19> >I think I'm going to leave my code in there for now and give them a chance to redeem themselves.

Why would you do that?

I mean, at least import the code to other repos

<comment><USER20> Do you think they are going to just delete it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I recognize this isn't an opinion that will resonate with many, but I find it offensive that Github praises and benefits so much from open source, yet is not open source itself. This has bothered me for many years.

Now this post from Nat, talking about how open source literally changed his life and made all things possible (which I agree with), bothers me even more. How can you say such things when your actions are so completely opposite? The hypocrisy is appalling to me.

Don't misunderstand, I _do_ think Github has done great things for open source. However, it's time for them to either practice what they preach (open the code) or else we need to move to gitlab of gitea or something else.

I'm actually a bit optimistic that MS might open source github in the long run. It's a long shot, but they have really been incredible with how much they have opened up. I'm more optimistic now with MS at the reins.

<comment><USER22> GitHub has helped to maintain git itself for years, in addition to creating and open-sourcing libgit2, a massive engineering effort, which ironically, GitLab is built on.

<comment><USER23> > a massive engineering effort, which ironically, GitLab is built on.

Perfectly normal use of FOSS; I'd say, not ironic. If GitHub wanted, they could have kept the work to themselves and avoided others benefiting from it.

FOSS is like people coming together with their own bricks and building a cathedral for everyone. There's little point in participating if you either don't want others to pitch in or don't want others to benefit from it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > GitHub will operate independently as a community, platform, and business.

Had Github been bought by an foundation operating outside the confides of the market, then such statement would have been believable. Microsoft will naturally use Github maximise its wealth, thus when disagreements arise then Microsoft will put its will through.

It is of course easy to imagine ways Github could be used by Microsoft, fore instance mere access to valuable user data, strategic focus on integration with Microsoft products or sigle sign on with Azure, Github, LinkedIn and Skype.

<comment><USER25> I work for Linkedin, MS is very respectful of our independence (sometimes in puzzling ways).

It's kinda painful and annoying to read about all the negativity and tinfoil hat theories but that's the price to pay (I guess) and we'll see what happens. Microsoft has every interest in playing nice with the community and everything to lose from trying to do anything hostile to it.

<comment><USER26> > It's kinda painful and annoying to read about all the negativity

I can imagine. You may wish to switch employers.

> and tinfoil hat theories

Are you saying that all complaints about MS conduct are delusional?

> Microsoft has every interest in playing nice with the community and > everything to lose from trying to do anything hostile to it.

So let's have a candid discussion about telemetry. Or sneaky Windows 10 upgrades. Or vague patent threats.

I'm sorry, but few software developers who follow Microsoft's actions will accept you crying martyr.

<comment><USER25> I'm saying most complaints I'm reading here have no basis in reality. Microsoft felt negatively in the past about OSS when it felt an existential threat from it. In the past few years the work of many inside Microsoft helped shape a new vision of OSS inside the company and it's pretty evident to anyone that's not trying to be blind that things have changed.

So yeah, let's talk about telemetry, or Windows updates, or patent threats. Every business makes decisions, some good, some bad. We might not agree 100% on which ones are which.

We're in the business of creating software and not running charities, we all do what's in our best interest trying not to be too evil, there's plenty of good folks and also plenty of assholes in every big co out there and all the negativity doesn't help the good ones pushing for the right outcomes.

<comment><USER26> Hey, thanks for replying!

I'm sympathetic to your point about large organizations having a mix of employees with different ethical standards.

In this particular case, as CEO Nadella is fully responsible for allowing the various nasty practices I enumerated above. (I tried to only list those which happened under his leadership.)

This is why I'm not persuaded about Microsoft's general trustworthiness by either of the following:

(a) Outsiders referring to Nadella's leadership of MS, or

(b) Nadella himself suggesting that people judge MS by its recent behavior.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Looking for answers to these questions from previous threads:

1\. If you want to develop software for Microsoft's Linux distro/kernel (Azure Sphere for IoT), it appears you must use Windows 10 + Visual Studio, [https://seeedstudio.com/productDetail/3052](https://seeedstudio.com/productDetail/3052) & [https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/developing-an- azure-s...](https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/developing-an-azure-sphere- experience-with-visual-studio/)

 _> To use MT3620 Dev Board for Azure Sphere, you'll need a Windows 10 PC with the latest Windows Updates, along with the Visual Studio Tools for Azure Sphere (which will be available for download from Microsoft). These tools will include application templates, development tools and the Azure Sphere software development kit (SDK). Terms: This development board can be only used for prototyping, it cannot be built into a product for commercial distribution. It cannot be re-sold or used as part of a production environment._

Since IoT is one of the "next big things", it would be nice to use Microsoft Linux ARM kernel with open hardware (no terms of service for hardware resale) and open software (e.g. use open-source Linux dev tools with the Azure SDK. Will this be an option?

2\. What is Microsoft's position on EU upload filters for copyright screening of code uploaded to Github? Has Microsoft taken a public position on this issue? Does Microsoft currently use upload filters for open source code screening?

[https://blog.github.com/2018-03-14-eu-proposal-upload- filter...](https://blog.github.com/2018-03-14-eu-proposal-upload-filters- code/)

</comment><comment><USER28> It was a pleasure but gitlab and bitbucket have continued to improve and I've expected some sort of exit for a while. I appreciate everything the Github team has done, but barring some crazy improvements from Microsoft I think my feet are firmly planted on the GitLab train.

<comment><USER29> How has gitlab "continued to improve"? They are getting worse. Do you have statistics on their uptime or their performance? Because in my own experience, gitlab.com is going from bad to worse. Their API increasingly returns 503s and timeouts. Their UI is increasingly returning a stale state. One pushes a branch and they say it doesn't exist. One does a git pull and it takes so long one is used to going off and putting the bloody kettle on. They don't know what they're doing. I don't have the time or inclination is to collect demonstrative evidence, but it'll take something to say they are "continuing to improve"!

<comment><USER30> Do you not self-host?

<comment><USER29> No sir, I do not. And I'd rather not have to.

<comment><USER30> I'm sometimes amazed at how afraid otherwise competent software dudes are of a bit of sysadministration.

<comment><USER31> It's not fear. It's experience. Having to keep an extra OS and software patched and up-to-date (often times different to the rest of your SoE because it's different software) and keep it safe from real-world threats takes a lot of time and context-switching to do well.

Hosting anything well takes up a lot more effort than the $100+/month we pay to GitHub and even the $7/month I pay personally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> +1 for the outreach. They definitely lost control of the announcement, since it got out yesterday.

The nice thing about it is, everyone who keeps their Git repo up-to-date (and who has the transfer.fsckobjects setting set to true) has a complete copy of the Git repo. And GitHub provides APIs to pull other stuff. I think the hardest thing to move would be sites on GitHub Pages.

So, since I can pull out relatively easily, I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt.

<comment><USER33> What's missing without transfer.fsckobjects ?

<comment><USER34> [https://git-scm.com/docs/git-config/184.108.40.206#git-config-fetch...](https://git- scm.com/docs/git-config/184.108.40.206#git-config-fetchfsckObjects)

My interpretation is that transfer.fsckObjects just checks that all of the fetched objects are properly formed and contain no broken links. I cannot confirm whether or not this fetches any extra objects from the remote; this is the first time I've heard about this feature.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I remember watching the "screencasts" (they were gifs back in those days), of Nat working on Beagle [1]. Sadly it's a dead project now, however, it shaped my attitude as a developer - how can I write software that _helps_ people.

I am really excited to see what Nat and team bring to the table

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_(software)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_\(software\))

</comment><comment><USER36>
      C:\GITHUB> git clone https://github.com/my/repository
      Cloning into repository...
      remote: Counting objects: 57583, done.
      remote: Compressing objects: 100% (36/36), done.
      ..................
      Resolving deltas: 100% (42949/42949), done.
      Install Bing Toolbar? (Y/n):

</comment><comment><USER37> There are a lot of users on here who either don't remember Microsoft's hostility to Linux and open source or who want to bury their head in the sand. 3 words are all you need to know about Microsft - Linux patent racket: [https://www.infoworld.com/article/3042699/open-source- tools/...](https://www.infoworld.com/article/3042699/open-source- tools/microsoft-loves-open-source-only-when-its-convenient.html) .

As far as I'm aware nothing has changed. A leopard never changes its spots.

</comment><comment><USER38> I read a lot of comments claiming that MS "used to be a bad actor" but, of course, they now "care about developers and open source". Developers, they say, are the very lifeblood of the new Microsoft. "We respect developers."

I work on Windows 10. It is normal for me to have many programs open while I do development along with dozens of web pages containing information I need. Days worth of "state" are stacked on the screen.

Every few days Microsoft reaches out and REBOOTS MY MACHINE, losing my work. My various linux boxes all have uptimes listed in YEARS. So next time you think Microsoft cares about your work be sure to thank them for random reboots. After all, a Microsoft 'update' is MUCH more important than your work. You're "just a developer".

Microsoft cares about Microsoft, not your work. Expect the same attitude to slowly, eventually, take over Github.

You'll need a Microsoft login. You'll be hosted on its server farm, requiring a login. You'll see Microsoft-branded forks of software, prioritized in github searches. You'll see a "Microsoft Git GUI" as the required interface for push/pull. The Microsoft Git will use incompatible hashing from the open source version (it's called "embrace and extend"). Microsoft Git repository communications (e.g. git://github.com) will only work with a Microsoft Git GUI over a Microsoft-login connection.

<comment><USER39> Settings -> Windows Update -> Restart Options: Off

<comment><USER38> Oh, and that option is only available on the "professional" version of Windows. We poor open source developers use the "non-professional" version that comes with the machine and THAT won't let you turn updates off.

So again, Microsoft is a corporation dedicated to making money. My time is only worthwhile if Microsoft can make money. So, naturally, in order to keep them from destroying my work I have to BUT an "professional" version.

"Nice place you got here, be a shame if anything happened to it."

The belief that Microsoft will help open source is simply naive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm a GitHub employee (previously a founder of Easel S12 and Flagr W06) and work now in the Product group on the Marketplace. I'm excited to see Nat's commitment to developers and our community. This news doesn't change our resolve towards building a platform that allows our Ecosystem to thrive.

We launched Marketplace just over a year ago and continue to heavily invest in it. We want it to become the place that any entrepreneur in the software space is able able to grow their own successful business. We're just at the beginning of that journey.

Looking forward to what's to come and to seeing more developer tools thrive on our Marketplace.

</comment><comment><USER41> Good to hear. Still, I have these memories of Facebook buying Whatsapp for too much money and first saying it will be impossible to integrate both platforms. Surprise, surprise, later they did find a way to integrate.

Microsoft paying 7.5B for something that looses money every year ? And not having any problems with that ? What will the shareholders say ?

<comment><USER42> the stock price just went over 100. i think the shareholders are fine

<comment><USER41> The shareholders see potential. I also think there are many ways for Microsoft to make money from Github. But that means changes the general Github user will not like (ads ? higher fees ? tracking ? killing atom ?). My point is that the 'Hello, Github' implies nothing will change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Microsoft destroyed Skype something I used for ten years but don't anymore. I.e. I forgot my password and mistakenly chose a fake birthday in my first attempt to reset my ten year old Skype account. Well doing that triggered authenticate your age by giving us your credit card number... what? Horrible consumer UX it's all about milking Skype for all it's worth and was worth. Facebook voice messenger works just as well and no credit card needed.

</comment><comment><USER44> > I'm not asking for your trust, but I'm committed to earning it.

Love this line. I had followed Xamarin when it was independent and I get a strong feeling that Nat wrote this himself and it's not just a PR speak. I am cautiously optimistic about GitHub going forward.

</comment><comment><USER45> Anybody else think that StackOverflow would be Microsoft's next purchase?

A profitable, developer focussed business built using Microsoft stack.

I don't know how much sense it makes for Microsoft to be making money through selling job ads, but if they're gonna take over all the tools that developers use then SO and the SE network seems a good fit.

<comment><USER25> I'm not sure it would make sense. While it's built on the MS stack, it's a somewhat toxic community with no clear business value. Even as a Q&A site has too much history and too much baggage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> The blue banner area at the top of GH pages tells me to click on a blog posting to learn more. So I do. And then I get to a microsoft page that has as its banner area an information box telling me that merely browsing this site means that I _agree_ to the use of cookies for analytics, personalized content and ads. Really, GH? Do you really want to direct your users to a page with that warning? Were you doing the same thing to me already, without warning? And will GH be doing similar harvesting of information?

And what about gitlab ...? Maybe they want my money more than GH does...

</comment><comment><USER47> He seems very reasonable, have a better feeling about this now. Maybe GitHub will be able to be a VSCode.

<comment><USER48> > Maybe GitHub will be able to be a VSCode.

The question is, what will happen to Atom?

What will happen to the X-Ray research project?

<comment><USER49> I don't understand why I keep reading "what about attom".

Atom is irrelevant to all of this, as far as I can tell. Can someone please educate me?

<comment><USER50> GitHub owns and maintains Atom, and it's biggest competitor is VS Code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> +1 for Nat heading this. (

Worked at Xamarin as an intern before the MS acquisition. So not too long, but enough to get a coffee downstairs with Nat at the coffee van. I also joined his all-hands. Great guy who has a great attitude towards open-source and has a positive leadership style. I was skeptical of the Xamarin acquisition, but MS open-sourced and made the platform free for everyone. Nat knows how this MS stuff goes, and I think he's a perfect fit to preserve the core of Github.

</comment><comment><USER52> I wonder what is in it for MS if "GitHub will operate independently as a community, platform, and business." and "GitHub will retain its product philosophy." stay true. Do they make money off of it? Get information (that turns into money) out of it?

</comment><comment><USER53> I was in the room at the Paris Solutions Linux when Nat did one of the first demos of compiz and XGL. It was a weird feeling because it started as a demo of benign desktop features, and it slowly transitioned to the awesome window transitions we've all come to know. Like many technological advancements, its effect on the short term had been largely overestimated (the fancy animation, transparent windows and cube desktop are almost forgotten), while in the long term, it was the first of many steps in the modernizing of the Linux graphics stack.

I have nothing relevant to add, since I don't really know Nat or how good he'd be leading Github (but I'd guess pretty good), I just thought it was a fun anectdote.

<comment><USER54> Those were some heady days in the Linux desktop world and I remember them fondly. I remember seeing those demos and being blown away, and then furiously trying to get it set up on my box to blow the minds of my buddies. I think we were all trying to be first!

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Right, make it about the person instead of the company. Put someone in charge who will turn the public (just look at te top posts in this thread vs earlier threads). Nice move, Microsoft.

People in an organization are usually not evil. It's the organization as a whole. And I'm pretty sure that this CEO has someone and their business with priorities in his neck. It's scary how easily it seems people here move on after seeing a face with a good reputation and a CEO sticker even though they'll still have to dance to another's wishes.

</comment><comment><USER56> I'm curious if there are any unforeseen legal implications in having the world's largest software company acquiring the private repositories of a massive number of smaller software companies, including independent competitors to MS.

MS now has the capability to not only snoop on smaller competitors' IP but gain visibility into their dev team composition, work habits, pipeline etc.

This acquisition smells like something that could get litigated to hell and back, though I'd assume they've already prepared for that

</comment><comment><USER57> I understand that Microsoft has handled some software they've acquired badly (Skype), but is the Microsoft of today not vastly different from the Microsoft of that day? I don't think this will be the downward spiral that some people think it will be. Time will tell though.

<comment><USER58> My primary concern is that I worry about an inevitable merging or linking with LinkedIn. As positive as my experience has been interacting with GitHub, it's been equally as negative interacting with LinkedIn. I worry that MS will see GitHub as the code management platform, and LinkedIn as the customer management platform.

It's important to me that my GitHub account and my LinkedIn account are allowed to be 100% separate. I don't want people able to hunt me down like that.

<comment><USER59> What is so negative about LinkedIn?

<comment><USER60> Almost everything? Aside from keeping an updated resume I've never had a single job come from it, nor anyone I know. As far as networking it's useless too. It's just recruiter spam and people you never met adding you to their network. They also did the whole MITM attack on your e-mail's contacts a few years back.

None of that is Microsoft's fault though, it's been useless for a while.

<comment><USER25> That's, like, your opinion man. Most of my jobs and most of my friends jobs have come through (or discovered thanks to) Linkedin. Before becoming an employee I used the site to find cofounders, people to interview for product feedback, check the background of possible hires...

You don't use it or like it, fine. Linkedin has created economic opportunity for so many, it's kinda ridiculous to dismiss it out of hand.

<comment><USER61> Says the guy working for Linkedin.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17232483](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17232483)

<comment><USER25> LOL, you caught me, so cunning. Almost like I didn't say "before becoming an employee" right in my comment.

<comment><USER61> Ah, I did not relate that use of the word employee to becoming an employee of linkedin. Fair enough. Still, unadulterated hype by employers of companies with questionable ethics doesn't hold a whole lot of weight in discussions like these.

<comment><USER25> If that's the reality you like to live in more power to you, but mine is not hype, is my personal experience, stuff I lived through. Can't you accept that someone's experience might be different than yours?

<comment><USER61> > That's, like, your opinion man.

:)

See, that cuts both ways.

My experience with linkedin: Countless emails suggesting that someone has 'added me on linkedin' when I never made an account, they clearly bought a list and kept on spamming it over and over again.

A website that leaks data like a sieve, one failed attempt after another to create a sense of community, utterly meaningless endorsements and competency system.

On and on. I really wonder what the draw of linked in is, I would never use it as a decision in whether or not to hire someone and I think it is one of the worst possible experiences on the web.

And that's before we get into it now being a Microsoft subsidiary, another major strike against it.

The sooner linkedin goes away the better, it's been ripe for disruption for many years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> I'm pleased that Microsoft has opened up, changed and grown so much in recent years. Congratulations to the entire GitHub team for making such a wonderful community and set of tools easily available, and for their successful acquisition. It will be fascinating to see where this goes - who would have imagined that a former heavyweight of proprietary software would achieve such a transformation?

I must ask the question now, though - is it time for a non-profit Github-like open source community with integrated source control / tools? Could that even exist due to the costs of running such a thing, and is it necessary? For example, it would be like if The Apache Foundation ran GitHub.

Or should we look into things like git over IPFS (or something similar) and try to go decentralized?

I have wrestled with the for-profit / not-for-profit conundrum my whole life, and I still do. Obviously, running such a utility / community costs money, so it is good to have one or more healthy companies supporting it. It should mean good things. But ultimately, both GitHub and Microsoft are primarily for- profit entities (although I know they both do a tremendous amount to support the not-for-profit space).

Perhaps Microsoft could even be the one to set up such a non-profit... like.. "The Microsoft Foundation for Open Source" or something similar. Knowing that the organization owning and managing such a utility and community is a non- profit - good or bad?

EDIT: ..perhaps like they have done with the .NET Foundation?

</comment><comment><USER63> Am seriously pissed at this. MS has been slowly acquiring all the tools used for my business, its like surround and siege warfare. Skype, Linkedin, now GitHub..

The time horizons on these kinds of acquisitions are 5 years out. In that time you`ll log into Windows 20, single sign in to Skype, Linkedin, Github all re- branded, all re-written code, with messed up ELUA and a shitty product.

Dont believe todays fluff and BS, the end game is many years out.

</comment><comment><USER64> The concepts of "bought for $7.5 billion" and "independent" strike me as mutually exclusive.

</comment><comment><USER65> Microsoft might contribute to open source now and again, but their business model is actually worse than it was when everyone hated them. Now Microsoft is a surveillance machine like Google and Facebook, but they've also got enterprise captive audiences using their telemetry packed cloud and OS.

All this good will because they developed a telemetry packed browser-based text editor or finally started providing a not-dog-crap shell environment is stupid. Their binary editor is licensed like Chrome, who builds VSCode from source?

Both Google and Microsoft are doing a hell of a lot of embrace and extinguishing and I think that pattern will continue unnoticed as long as they keep devs happy with silly gimmicky pro-developer products.

</comment><comment><USER66> Best of luck Nat! Hoping to see all the improvements the community has been asking for very long. And maybe a new pricing model?

</comment><comment> pow_pp_-1_v A nice, safe introduction.

There's a lot of talk about people leaving github for other platforms. If there are actually doing it, it seems like a short-sighted move. I understand why people who lived through the earlier years of Microsoft are skeptical. Microsoft did a very good job of earning a lot of ill will.

But things have changed. Microsoft's primary focus seems to be is Azure and everything they do needs to be looked through that lens. They need developers of all stripes using Azure. So they will do everything to attract _all_ developers. It's in their business interest.

<comment><USER59> Because it is the business interest to get people using Azure, how do you think this will effect Github?

<comment> pow_pp_-1_v I would guess that the acquisition will not affect Github in any detrimental way. I would argue that developer good-will is a more valuable commodity to Microsoft now than in the years past.

More happy users of Github => more happy developers using a MS product => more developer good-will => more developers/decision-influencers that might consider a MS cloud product (like Azure).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Maybe they can bundle free private GitHub repos with their Office360 offering.

<comment><USER68> I fully expect them to just make private repos free for everyone, a la Bitbucket and Gitlab.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> @: It looks like you're starting a git repository.

</comment><comment><USER70> I hope GitHub doesn't change much. It works well. It does basically one thing and they've never tried to do more than what they are. Microsoft used to have their own code repo and they shut it down. It was mostly used for .NET projects if I recall correctly. Microsoft to be honest has done a lot of good lately. I love VS Code. It's the best editor I've ever used. So I'm hopeful, but changes like this are always scary. Announcements are usually full of promises that seem to be shortly broken.

</comment><comment> jas- Skeptical, but not without cause.

1\. Late 90's/Early 2000's, Microsoft's implementation and inclusion of CDRW/DVDRW functionality native to the OS eliminating competition from smaller companies that had pioneered the technology and was selling their software to Windows desktop users.

2\. Late 90's/Early 2000's, Microsoft's implementation and development of Active Directory which not only rivaled Novell's Netware flagship product but also went against RFC's put forth by the larger community that rivaled OpenLDAP. Because of the desktop shares and users already on the Windows NT platform put thousands out of work and nearly put Novell out of business.

3\. Early to mid 2000's, Microsoft moves away from already found vulnerable MSCHAP, MSCHAPV2 authentication protocols in favor of the MIT Kerberos protocol for all network authentication of users and systems in Active Directory.

Not only did this put those companies out to pasture and eliminate a large amount of revenue but the idea of stealing and idea is very bad tact. Reverse engineering code to gain a larger market share is not only dishonest but plagarism and illegal in schools. Why should the free economy play by a different set of rules?

People wonder why Microsoft has a bad reputation, the three things I have witnessed over the years in conjunction with the snatching up smaller companies and parting them out make me and I am sure many others very skeptical of their desire to snatch up the worlds largest source code repository.

</comment><comment><USER71> @natfriedman, thanks to come public and sharing with us. To summarize in one word: transparency. That's what GitHub community expects from the platform and you are the key person to drive it. Microsoft has been increasingly open to the whole open-source idea, which is great. But coming to the point, please, understand the following concerns: 1 - There is without doubt a conflict of interest and trust issues on Microsoft hosting thousands of private repositories, where some potentially compete with Microsoft commercial interests; 2 - There are concerns that the platform would become a exclusive marketing weapon in the hands of Microsoft, eventually killing the spirit of openness and free competition. 3 - The developer community fears that Microsoft see them as "potential clients" and therefore as target to its products. The developer community doesn't want to be monetizing neither be bombarded with Microsoft products ads. 4 - GitHub has always been a community driven and community centered platform. What will be the role of Microsoft as it changes from "one more user" to the owner of the platform? 5 - What is now business model of GitHub and how entangled is it with Microsoft? More than ever, and more than anything else transparency will be the key for the success of GitHub. I wish you lucky on the new task.

</comment><comment><USER72> Nothing against the CEO but we all know who the stakeholders are.

</comment><comment><USER73> What I really love about this is that M$ realize the product's users are tightly wound to the brand's identity, and are hostile to M$'s. They know they're buying a "lifestyle brand" and that they have to keep it hip and unencumbered by a corporate behemoth or it'll become worthless.

When the new CEO has to make a public personal appeal to the users to keep them from jumping ship, that says something (though I'm not sure what that is).

<comment><USER74> > M$

Really?

<comment><USER30> Long live the Gates?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Minecraft is evidence in my mind of Microsoft being a reasonable corporate overlord. They could have fought modders and killed off java, but instead have been continuing development on it. I think they have gotten to understand the value of existing communities and maybe how not to accidentally destroy them.

For all these companies with the free time to migrate repo hosts on the same day, get back to work and make something worth your focus.

</comment><comment><USER76> "Linux, Git, node and Kubernetes" putting Kubernetes at the same level as Linux and Git... Not a pre-crafted commercial message from M$ at all guyze lul

<comment><USER77> Maybe it isn't in the area you work in, but for many companies I've worked with, it's a critical component.

I'd say it would probably be easier to replace git with hg or something than to pull out and redo the k8s infrastructure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> Software developers to companies:

\- don't charge me money! \- don't raise your prices! \- don't raise money! \- don't sell your company! \- don't shutdown! ...

Me, I don't care. I work for myself.

</comment><comment><USER79> "I've been a developer since I was six". I would love to learn what sort of projects were kids working on this early back in the 80s.

<comment><USER80> I'll second this.

I often tell the story about the first program I wrote (at 8) and how I got beaten by good old flesh and blood.

I don't tell people I was a developer at six... I wrote a program... semantics matter here.

The photo got me... The fake over done smile, the "I had a professional take this" pose. The Hoodie. It just smacks of being over produced to try to fit in.

> I'm not asking for your trust, but I'm committed to earning it. I can't wait > to help make the GitHub platform and community that's special to all of us > even greater.

Im not calling you a liar but I already don't believe you.

<comment><USER81> Agreed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> Will he fix these sorts of problems:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9966118](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9966118)

and also issues of people being removed from projects _by GitHub Management_ because of political or personal opinions expressed in other forums that were unrelated to the open source project?

This is why I don't use GitHub

</comment><comment><USER83> Goodbye Github. No way I trust Microsoft with my private code. Hello Gitlab.

<comment><USER84> Let's trust a startup that accidentally blew up their database and lost all sorts of data, as opposed to Microsoft. At least the other complaints about the acquisition make sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> >My name is Nat and I've been a developer since I was six

Oh come on give me a break

<comment><USER86> What? You didn't code when you were three?

<comment><USER87> I cut my teeth on blockchain...

(...a string of wooden blocks I teethed on.)

<comment><USER88> I started with Rust...I had to get a tetanus shot at a very young age.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> I think what bothers me about this announcement is that _anyone_ owns Github; that is, a tech giant with a lot of influence in the software world owning the largest repository of code in history. Something feels wrong about it. I'd be as uncomfortable with it if Google or Facebook or Apple owned it.

</comment><comment><USER90> Most people are thinking of this from the GitHub perspective, but MS Office is bigger, and random document editors could benefit a lot from smarter, easier version control.

That's just one example, but I'm honestly most curious if any ideas will go from GitHub to other products.

</comment><comment><USER91> > PS: I'll be doing an AMA on Reddit in the next few days, I hope to see you > there!

It's a bit of shame that that's the location of choice for hosting an AMA. The AMA subreddit is good, but it's trapped in the toxic cesspool that is Reddit overall.

<comment> ryan-allen That depends on what subs your subscribed to, or filter from /r/all, there's a lot of positive, creative stuff on Reddit. Here's my filtered list from /r/all (most of the awful crap is USA politics, and all the anti-Trump subreddits, at least the pro-Trump people stick to the one sub): [https://gist.github.com/ryan- allen/18e0e0ccbe34e81b7a0b96d11...](https://gist.github.com/ryan- allen/18e0e0ccbe34e81b7a0b96d11803ac16)

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> I feel a bit better knowing Nat Friedman will be CEO. He does have a history with OSS software projects and also running such companies.

I hope that things don't change. I have come to rely on GitHub and I don't want to go investing in another solution.

<comment><USER21> I agree, and MS also has some pretty good OSS chops these days. But Github itself is closed source. This is something that I think needs to change, or Github needs to disappear. There are good OSS solutions now that we need to make grow.

I also rely a lot on Github and don't want to move, but I'm going to bite the bullet if they don't open up. I don't like the hypocrisy, and I don't want to be an enabler anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER93> It looks like they were expecting everything but mass panic.

Well developers aren't skype's users.

</comment><comment><USER94> Can somebody change the title to "GitHub is joining Microsoft and a former GNOME developer will become the new CEO" or something like that? "Hello, Github" doesn't say anything...

<comment><USER95> title should be:

"SCM/CM is not free as in beer"

Really want git? Hire a CM mgr/team to manage your code. Been that way before 2010 (yes, it did suck). Doesn't matter if it's done in-house or out-house.

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> [https://twitter.com/githubclippy/status/1003630360008253441](https://twitter.com/githubclippy/status/1003630360008253441)

</comment><comment><USER97> I wonder if MS went all the way to pay people to comment and vote on HN stories and comment. It would make a lot of sense for them to do. I wonder if HN has any protection against this?

</comment><comment><USER98> Congratulations to Microsoft.

I've heard it all after this acquisition was announced. Microsoft is evil, Microsoft will never change, Microsoft is that and this, Microsoft will destroy GitHub.

There are people who see a monster when they hear Microsoft but I bet ask them how they've been hurt by Microsoft and nothing will come up.

Is our bias towards Microsoft stoping us from seeing the great work they've done in embracing Linux and open source software. Tell me it's not a big change, and departure from the old Microsoft.

</comment><comment><USER99> I think my main concern going forward would be a diaspora of open source projects.

One of the neat things about Github is that a ton of open-source projects can be found there. Regardless of how Github operates going forward for individual users, I would be surprised if projects like Facebook's React or Google's Angular remained on a platform controlled by Microsoft.

Those are only two examples in a sea of OSS projects, so maybe the impact will be smaller than I think.

</comment><comment><USER100> > The Octocat is out of the bag

Why didn't I see that coming? Brilliant.

</comment><comment><USER101> The main platform where open source takes place is now owned by a company that thought of open source as a form of cancer, vocally talked against it in a disrespectful manner for no reason, promoted fear/uncertainty/doubt campaigns, and even to this day continues to troll companies with patents.

That is not a great place to be in.

Personally, I think everyone should just move their projects somewhere else before Microsoft starts forcibly herding developers their way.

<comment><USER48> > thought of open source as a form of cancer, vocally talked against it

Not that I deny it, because can you point me to some examples of this?

<comment><USER101> [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/)

Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO said: "Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches"

That is a direct attack to open source licensing and open source software.

Microsoft had to take that back after they were beaten in the market and lost popularity among developers.

Now it's plan B: govern open source projects and infrastructure and put them to the service of Microsoft interests. One way of doing that could be simply mismanaging them and setting them for failure.

<comment><USER102> That article is written using very inflammatory language -- I am very wary to take it at face value, because an author using this kind of language is very unlikely to deeply analyze what Ballmer actually said. Furthermore, this was said two decades ago. Take it with a grain of salt.

<comment><USER101> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish)

Some brief history refresher:

\- Apple + Microsoft "collaborating" on Macintosh software = Windows

\- IBM + Microsoft "collaborating" on OS/2 = the NT kernel, Windows NT

\- Sybase + Microsoft "collaborating" on Sybase SQL server = MS SQL Server

\- Sun + Microsoft "embracing" Java = .NET Framework

"Take it with a grain of salt".

<comment><USER103> You were downvoted... What in the hell is wrong with HN users? Are they all children? These events are well within living memory for a lot of us.

<comment><USER101> A lot of people do not have a perspective on how greedy Microsoft was.

Bill Gates is one of the richest people in the world today, not by gathering in circles and singing happy songs. The guy was a monopolist.

They wanted everyone to use Microsoft Windows, code in Visual Studio, do their office work in Office, browse the web in Internet Explorer, have a Microsoft e-mail, chat using Microsoft services, and you get the idea.

And a lot of that was possible by having Windows preinstalled in new computers, and bundling software with Windows, like Internet Explorer. You could argue Apple is similar, but I do not think Apple is interested in a monopoly of the size of that planned by Microsoft.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER104> This all sounds good and nice. The question is how much real power he has in Microsoft hierarchy? I mean, if some Microsoft VP decides to violate any of the promises Nat Friedman makes, what would be his options (besides the obvious one of resigning)? How much power he has if Microsoft decides to change direction and force GitHub to do something they didn't want to do?

</comment><comment><USER105> Who wants their pull request comments to be used as metadata for Microsoft to benefit from knowing what each software developer under the sun is working on at any time? Didn't we just face the same abuse of leverage personal data from facebook? I will privilege my communication either private or professional by refraining to use both github and facebook.

<comment><USER106> I never really lumped Microsoft in the "abuse your personal data" space.

Abuse their market position, yes, abuse TOS to screw companies out of money, yes, but abuse privacy, unsure that's fair.

</comment></comment><comment><USER107> Just copy paste from here:

"Please remove all data you have on me. I do not consent with your privacy policy. I don't give permission for your organization to use any kind of information you have about me."

[https://github.com/contact/privacy](https://github.com/contact/privacy)

</comment><comment> dh-g Nat Friedman as CEO has mostly placated my knee jerk reaction of RUN! Really happy with how this is going so far.

</comment><comment><USER108> I do hope that this works. One major concern I have is being badly burned by using Xamarin when it was a couple of years (4?) old. I hope they don't do that to github. Xamarin wasn't very elegant back then when those guys started it - it was a horrid hack. That makes me worried.

</comment><comment><USER109> This might be interesting, the audio of the conference call with Nadella, Friedman, Wanstrath, & CFO [https://edge.media- server.com/m6/p/eudfciq3](https://edge.media-server.com/m6/p/eudfciq3)

</comment><comment><USER110> In case you're looking for alternatives, this thread might be of some help: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17241487](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17241487)

</comment><comment><USER111> The emphasis I've seen on "still be able to code in your choice of language," leads me to think there will be some caveat to doing so. E.g. they'll put the windows ad spyware into peoples' code repositories like sourceforge or something else...

</comment><comment><USER112> Done in true GitHub style with the source code of this post at [https://github.com/natfriedman/hello](https://github.com/natfriedman/hello) rendered with GitHub pages. :-)

</comment><comment><USER113> Great news for open source.

Perhaps now all the companies in the MS silo are going to learn how OSS is something that can be taken seriously.

I've worked in enterprise where using open source tends to be frowned upon. This was mostly due to the FUD from Microsoft.

</comment><comment><USER114> Bye, GitHub.

<comment><USER115> GitHub is dead, long live GitHub.

</comment></comment><comment><USER116> Heh, the United States of Github got invaded and occupied.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/githubs-oval- office-2013-9](http://www.businessinsider.com/githubs-oval-office-2013-9)

</comment><comment><USER117> Wow, a bunch of words, with no real promises worth a damn. I'm so impressed.

</comment><comment><USER118> I really like what Microsoft did in the past 2-3 years on the open source side and I keep my fingers crossed hopin they will do a good job with github too :)

</comment><comment><USER37> Repeat after me: L-I-N-U-X P-A-T-E-N-T R-A-C-K-E-T

</comment><comment><USER93> Btw If Microsoft would mean that seriously (supporting open source) the new owner would be some foundation (something like mozilla).

<comment><USER14> 7 billion dollars? And how should they explain that to the shareholders. What they will hopefully do: run it like it but do not make it official.

<comment><USER93> Honestly I'm thinking they'll have to explain why they bought empty box for $ 7bln.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER119> its good as it will spur a bunch of new GitHubs and innovation in that space. It is like a business case validation for investors. For example like Cruise acquisition spurred more self-driving startups. The times have changes and it isn't 90ies anymore when MS could buy/develop some soft and extinguish all competition in the related area.

</comment><comment><USER120> How is MS expected to make money on this?

<comment><USER14> I think they shrink it a bit down and cut administrative overhead (synergy) and some engineering (eg atom (buuh)). The later they can also reorganize.

For them it just does not need to lose too much money.

<comment><USER120> They spent 7GUSD+ on it. It is dozens of years of GitHub revenue...

<comment><USER14> The investment .. forget that. That does not need to refinance itself (unofficially)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER121> GitLab servers are very, very slow today.

<comment><USER29> Today? Rest assured, they have been very, oh very slow, for a long time. Their Twitter status feed and post mortem dialogue ad infinitum is proof enougb. GitHub has nothing to worry about just yet.

<comment><USER23> > they have been very, oh very slow, for a long time.

From a regular ($DAYJOB) GitLab.com user: this is hyperbole. GitLab.com is slower than GitHub.com, in general, but not "very, oh very" slow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER122> I'm using another service for my private repos, as github's pricing structure for a single dev is seriously uncompetitive.

I wanted to move my public / open source repos for a long time. Now I finally I have the opportunity to do so without getting into discussions at an interview on why am I not using github.

For people such as myself, I don't know what Microsoft / Github can do or say to convince otherwise.

<comment><USER123> > pricing structure for a single dev is seriously uncompetitive

$7/month is a burden? What's it competing with except a fancy coffee or two?

<comment><USER122> Remember, these costs add up quite easy. Why bother if I can get the same features for free?

But it really depends on how you view it. I felt I got better value by supporting an open source project I like on patreon (Godot) than spending my money on this subscription.

<comment><USER123> > Remember, these costs add up quite easy.

Some single developers are perhaps a bit spoiled. Other professions need offices, stores, work trucks, thousands of dollars in physical tools that they'll need to maintain and replace as they wear out. We need a computer and have the _option_ of a $7/month subscription to perpetually-updated professional tools. $7/month doesn't cover the printer paper most professionals go through in a month. Software developers need a computer and that's about it, and some apparently find $7/month "uncompetitive" because that fee didn't come with sufficient feel-good about charitable giving or something. All the software and professional services I subscribe to as a single developer don't add up to the cost of maintaining and fueling the van my A/C repair guy shows up in, so I have to disagree that they add up quite easy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Are there actually people dumb enough to think microsoft employees will be browsing their private repos?

<comment><USER124> This was the company that would (allegedly) start acquisition talks and then after they learned what they needed during due diligence they would back out of the deal and create a competing product. (Unfortunately, I don't know the words to search for any articles.) So, while I, personally don't think they would, I also wouldn't take the risk. FB employees looked at people's private details; if you can, someone will do it at some time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER125> Please please keep GitHub a neutral place for hosting code, resource and everything as always.

</comment><comment> g-b-r I hope this will slow down git's adoption and push more people towards Mercurial

</comment><comment><USER126> > I'm not asking for your trust, but I'm committed to earning it.

A choice line. Let's see if he means it.

</comment><comment><USER127> While the submitted link resolves: [https://natfriedman.github.io/hello/](https://natfriedman.github.io/hello/)

This doesn't: [https://natfriedman.github.io/](https://natfriedman.github.io/)

Might be worth redirecting...

<comment><USER48> > [https://natfriedman.github.io/hello/](https://natfriedman.github.io/hello/)

Wait, is that a one-off custom landing page? Something that normal users can't do?

I don't see a "hello" repo in his list of repositories: [https://natfriedman.github.io/hello/](https://natfriedman.github.io/hello/)

Can private repos have publicly accessible pages?

<comment><USER128> I think it's the gh-pages branch on a private repository.

If you look at Nat's account right now [0], he doesn't even have the telltale "GitHub Staff" badge, probably because his hiring is contingent upon the deal closing.

So he's definitely not an admin at the system level, which just makes him a normal account.

[https://github.com/natfriedman](https://github.com/natfriedman)

Edit: I'm on a roll today. No, I'm mistaken — it's not gh-pages. This is the repo: [https://github.com/natfriedman/hello](https://github.com/natfriedman/hello)

By all measures I don't see how this is a pages repo at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER129> Though the idea of it makes my skin crawl, I am cautiously optimistic.

</comment><comment><USER130> ha! my github user id is way smaller than his. noob. [https://caius.github.io/github_id/](https://caius.github.io/github_id/)

</comment><comment><USER131> I am not asking for you trust, I am committed to earning it.

That's some badass line.

</comment><comment><USER132> Looking forward to this. Great story and good for all developers.

</comment><comment><USER133> I wonder if they timed this announcement with the Apple keynote.

</comment><comment><USER134> Nat's a good guy- built stuff with him back in the 90s

</comment><comment><USER135> Congrats Nat! Best of luck for this future endeavor :).

</comment><comment><USER136> I'm happy it's Nat.

</comment><comment><USER137> Very well said. I predict this will work out.

</comment><comment><USER138> I'll now use Github like I'd rub salt into my slashed wrists from dealing with Microsoft's bullshit over the years.

They can burn in hell.

</comment><comment><USER81> What does M$ bring to the table other than a giant pile of money?

How does this giant pile of money serve the users of github?

<comment><USER25> Other than being the biggest developer-focused company in the world? Having an extremely complete set of developer tools that can integrate with github? A cloud computing service to deploy apps?

I guess nothing, it brings nothing to the table.

<comment><USER81> I think that Microsoft is money-focused, not developer-focused.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the mass of open-source developers vastly outweighs Microsoft.

These "developer tools" are the property of Microsoft. Which suggests an obvious and worrying path in Github's future. Tell me that I'm wrong.

Everybody and his dog has a cloud computing service these days.

<comment><USER25> Do you think Github wasn't "money focused"? I'm sure you felt mighty smart making that comment, but businesses are by default focused on making money. HOW you make the money varies, but the final goal doesn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER139> Can you promise that Microsoft employees will not browse and otherwise process private repositories?

<comment><USER14> They have some dozen different kind of SaaS platforms (think of Office, Azure, ...).

When they do that in an ill-defined way, they are done.

And with "done" I mean the whole company. The financial lose would be dramatic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER140> Honestly, can you think of a smarter move on the part of Microsoft than making Nat Friedman (a veteran of the Open Source community) CEO of Github? I completely trust this guy to do as good a job as can be done of guiding Github forward as a product and a platform, now that the venture capitalists are no longer in the picture.

<comment><USER141> I just checked. Nat Friedman hasn't made a public commit on Github since August 2015. And if you care to look deeper, since 2010, not much at all.

[https://github.com/natfriedman](https://github.com/natfriedman)

<comment><USER142> You have no idea who Nat Friedman is, do you?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER143> He seems nice.

</comment><comment><USER144> Make Github Great Again!

</comment><comment><USER145> nice

</comment><comment><USER146> developing when you were six? fuck off

<comment><USER147> Why not? I was programming on a Commodore Plus/4 at the age of five. I got my teeth into this industry by hand typing from magazine articles programs that done nothing more then making the sound of bird tweets, but it taught me A: the basics of how a programming language works, and B: how to debug to get around the inevitable typo in the magazine.

</comment></comment><comment> brian-armstrong Hopefully MS can reign in Github's ridiculous remote work policy. Github's product velocity has been effectively zero for the past few years, and remote work is likely part of why.

</comment><comment><USER148> I guess he started with wrong note.

He is developer since six - since 1983. This means his family was wealthy one. He also survived two years of Microsoft.

Now even sceptical and lazy me thinks I have to move out of github. ;)

<comment><USER149> His family was wealthy, and he worked at Microsoft for two years, so you have to move out from GitHub?

What are you even trying to say?

<comment><USER148> He is not representative of most developers, first (wealthy and corporate- politics resistant), and tries to present himself as one, second (how he introduced himself).

This means Github will be handled by non-developer who tries to pretend to be a developer. This means he lies, conspicuously or not. In both cases I cannot see him as smart enough and self-aware enough.

Given that, I think github will be mishandled and I also think I would be better off somewhere else.

<comment><USER149> Nat Friedman is not a developer? Did you do the most basic google research before bashing him?

If Nat is not a developer, then not a lot of people are, this has to be one of the stupidest comments I have read.

<comment><USER148> Yes, I did my research and verified it just now (looked at his github). I was not and am not impressed.

<comment><USER149> Ah I see. You want a CEO that also has a developer role at the same time. You are one of those that think running a company is a BS job and anyone could actually do it, so in your would it would make sense to take someone that was shipping code during the last sprint and just give him the CEO role of a 1 thousand, 300M$ revenue company.

In my world that would be completely stupid and reckless. Nat was coding full- time just a few years ago and move to leadership roles recently, so that's exactly what we need to run GitHub: someone that actually knows how to handle large organisation, and someone who knows what being a developer means so he can make sure GitHub is going in the right direction.

I don't even know why I am arguing with you though, you are clearly just doing some level condescending gate keeping, so it's not like anything I say has any impact.

Have fun being toxic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER150> "Hey everyone, I am Nat. I joined the dark side, now I am being rewarded for it as a future CEO, woohoo! I hope you are as happy as I am! See ya later!"

Many of us were given a choice to join MS but didn't.

<comment><USER151> I like that there are still hardline cold warriors out there from the '90's.

I was there too, but the war is over. Come in from the cold.

<comment><USER150> Come on, I still see the deformations in our industry caused by MS, Oracle and similar companies and nothing of the bad deeds was undone (nobody is going to resurrect progressive businesses/ideas they killed off). Instead we have Bill playing a philanthrope and getting admiration by outsiders and Satya being the jobesque face of "new MS", with Windows 10 fun. I worked for their main competitor and another company that was eaten alive by MS, and they tried to poach me as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER152> I'm happy that at least Google doesn't own GitHub. Microsoft seems like the best company to buy GitHub out of all the major tech companies.</comment>


Steam for Mobile Devices (Requires Invitation) - <AUTHOR> http://store.steampowered.com/mobile

<comment><USER2> Sad that they are requiring invitation and also sad that they aren't selling mobile games yet.

<comment><USER3> Add that to the fact it hasn't been posted outside of the US App Store and you got yourself a whole barrel of sadness.</comment></comment>


The 100mph bike – designed in the bath and made from an old saucepan - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9248769/The-100mph-bike-designed-in-the-bath-and-made-from-an-old-saucepan.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter <comment><USER2> Graeme Obree (the subject of this article) is a great hacker. No, not in the software sense, but most definitely in the cycling world. Consider:

\- At least twice he produced advances so innovative that they were subsequently banned (his "Old Faithful" bicycle and his "Superman" riding position)

\- He's quoted as saying, "My biggest fear is not crashing on a bike and losing some skin. It's sitting in a chair at 90 and saying, 'I wish I had done more.'"

\- Even when he fails, he gets up and tries again (though, hopefully, he won't attempt suicide a third time.)

</comment><comment><USER3> this is super rad

<comment><USER4> Send me an angel..... right now!</comment></comment>


Inside WebM Technology: The VP8 Alternate Reference Frame - <AUTHOR> http://webmproject.blogspot.com/2010/05/inside-webm-technology-vp8-alternate.html

<comment><USER2> Alternate reference frames seem like a great compromise that can solve the same problem as B-frames without as many downsides. Does anyone know if there are other codecs using this technique? Are there some major downsides that aren't mentioned in this post? It seems like a technique other codecs would be using since it's more flexible than B-frames, and doesn't sound particularly complicated to come up with (it reminds me of the principle behind simple dictionary compressors like LZMA).</comment>


YardBook (YC W16) Is an Online Marketplace for the $30.9B Lawncare Business - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/10/backed-by-ycombinator-yardbook-is-an-online-marketplace-for-the-30-9-billion-lawncare-business/ <comment><USER2> I'm surprised by the business model. You're providing business management software but monetizing through ads?

I think this means you're trying to earn dominance over the attention of business owners by providing good software for free, and that you expect to be able to charge a premium for well-targeted ads. This might make great sense for landscaping, where there are significant equipment and material costs and those vendors are highly competitive. "Hello Husqvarna, I have 300 users with $10000 of tree work booked in the next week and only one functioning chainsaw" sounds like a pretty good pitch.

It's kinda the long tail version of facebook's business model, serving a business need instead of a social one. Nifty.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are definitely on the right track since it is otherwise very difficult for specific brands (selling big ticket items) to target a this highly specific yet large audience. We're currently monetizing along this dimension and plan to further optimize this approach.

<comment><USER2> Cool. Thanks and good luck!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hello HN--

I wanted to share what my Co-Founder and I have been working on. We built Yardbook to provide small landscape businesses with software tools to help them run their businesses. We have features for customer management, scheduling, billing just to name a few.

Check it out at: [https://www.yardbook.com/pages/home](https://www.yardbook.com/pages/home)

It's a humble start but I'd love to get your thoughts and feedback on how we can improve the site.

Thanks in advance.

<comment><USER3> I like this. I've thought about tackling this space with something similar for years, just never made it a priority. I think your site is great but here's some feedback on that: you probably want to support Spanish language (did i miss it?). You could probably upsell the free aspect more heavily. I would remove the "why is it free" part. Just sell the FREE! Risk-free, no credit card required, sign up now!! People generally don't care why, this just distracts when you're trying to convert. Tell them why once in the app if you feel it's absolutely necessary, will make for a more natural "upgrade to remove ads" experience if that's what you're after

I would test a landing page without the background image, and a more concise benefits w/ CTA. I just get the feeling that the above the fold section isn't converting to it's full potential. The mossy forest ground doesn't make it immediately apparent this is a landscaping website. I have to read the text, so focusing on the text make sense to me.

If I click "Claim my profile" link, why does it scroll down? Seems like I want to sign up if I click that. Then if I click the "Get my Profile" button there's a popup asking if I already have an account. This flow seems very high friction.

Keep up the good work!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the thoughtful and thorough feedback! We will definitely start tweaking and testing the items you called out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Good example of choosing a niche market, but being able to jump to other markets with the core product built (e.g. any service based small business is going to need invoicing, route planning, customer management). Geoffrey Moore (crossing the chasm) would be proud.

<comment><AUTHOR> That is part of our philosophy as well. The balancing act is how 'verticalized' you make a product. Too vertical will entail challenges when you transpose to another market. Not vertical enough will entail challenges in the go-to-market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Please do not take this as a knock on your business. Why exactly do we need special software tools specifically for landscape business? Are there any specific challenges here that usual small businesses do not encounter (handy men, pet grooming, plumbing etc etc). I fear for the worse when I see companies starting to cater to a very specialized markets. Obviously YC and hence you have answers to all of the above and more. But these are questions I hope at least a few HN readers have.

<comment><USER6> There is a very large site that caters to landscape businesses (lawnsite.com). Browse through the forums there and you'll quickly get a feeling for how useful the software tools unique to that industry are.

Not in the business, but I used to hang out there when I was looking for software business ideas.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great point! We frequent lawnsite as well and there is resounding consensus that companies in the space want software 'tailored enough' to their specific needs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Any interest in partnering with a lead provider? if so, email me at firstname.lastname@example.com. Actually, I plan on being a bidding platform soon.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Sounds great. How can I find/hire a vendor that uses YardBook, though? It's not clear from the website.

<comment><AUTHOR> Right now Yardbook is strictly a tool for the vendor (lawn professional). You can almost think about us as Salesforce and quickbooks for landscapers and gardeners. We haven't yet built out an experience for the homeowner to find and choose vendors, but that is definitely a consideration.</comment></comment>


Poll: 25% would trade rights for security, down from 47% - <AUTHOR> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-01/Poll-25-would-trade-rights-for-security-down-from-47/50222000/1

<comment><USER2> Buyer's remorse.

</comment><comment><USER3> They didn't realize that expanding the powers of the presidency and eroding the checks and balances built into the constitution would apply to the "other party" too.

</comment><comment><USER4> And what are we supposed to do with the 22% that didn't listen when we warned them years ago?

<comment><USER5> Take away their right to vote? It's for their own good!

More seriously, though, I'd love to talk to anybody who's changed their mind on this front, one way or the other. If you actually believe that giving up your own rights is a good price to maybe protect against rare events, what can make you change your mind? Related question: how many people changed their mind because they used to think "I have nothing to hide; I'm not doing anything wrong" and are now considered to be "doing something wrong"?

<comment><USER6> I think the TSA full body scanner/pat-down fiasco helped a lot.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, the blatant abuse tends to put a focus on events. The problem is elected reps not getting the pat down and certain executives who have private jets keep thinking rights are not as important as safety.</comment></comment></comment></comment>