If you're concerned about buying (and you should be) please do not simply move to (the hosted instance), it also runs on MS servers, (Azure) - always self-host GitLab, or if it's too heavy, go with Gitea.

Whatever you do, do not simply move from one silo to another.


As someone posted earlier, it's not so much Microsoft that's the problem as silo systems in general.

@MatejLach Good lord! Gitea took me less than a minute to d/l, chmod and see in my brower!

@MatejLach I would add a bit of a nuance here that moving from a giant silo to a smaller silo is a marginal improvement. Not sure this is the case here, but I think it is a nuance worth highlighting because sometimes you only can choose between silos and smaller silos have more incentive to not act like silos.

@Alonealastalovedalongthe Good point, however after today's announcement, they may just become a lot larger. 😃

Why would you be concerned? I never understood this adverse reaction to large firms. I think people should remember that without them we wouldn't even have the computers of today.

@razcore We wouldn't have computers today with a lot of taxpayer money. We certainly would have computers and with more choice, more CPU options, more OS options, more everything. Do you remember when there was Apple, the PC, Amiga, various UNIXes etc.? Well, we could have had more CPU and OS options today, not have governments depend on MS Office etc. Large, unchallenged monopolies capitalize markets for pure profit and pure profit rarely aligns with your own interest as a end-user.

@razcore I am against centralization of power and monopolies. x86 did not win because of technical merit, nor did Windows or Internet Explorer, but that's what monopolies get us.
Chrome is now pushing out any competition and becoming the new IE, while Google has more and more power at the W3C to push for DRM and proprietary standards.

@razcore All of these large companies are deeply connected to the U.S. intelligence apparatus and when you have all of your source code in this one, connected basket, it makes it easier to cause large damage to the open-source community with a single MS decision, or to sneak in backdoors via their NSA connections that are usually not as much in place for smaller companies.

@razcore Overall, it should be obvious why extreme levels of centralization and a single point of failure at the hands of a potentially hostile entity, (leadership and priorities of MS will adjust as needed in the future). You're on Mastodon, so you must understand this at some level.
Also, some of us still remember how it was in the 90s-20s when you simply couldn't reasonably avoid MS and they were behaving very hostile towards - they still do, since they haven't dropped their lawsuits.

@razcore They still require royalties from OEMs because of supposed patent violations in the kernel etc. So all this talk of ' loves Linux' sounds like a load of BS to me so far and I refuse to be duped by them.

Sure, I agree with some of it. I don't think we would even have wide spread consumer computers without the help of large companies. I don't necessarily see any benefit from having a million choices to choose from. Many choices != quality. I do agree on the centralization issue, I don't agree on attacking companies that with withing the economic framework available. The problem is the system, not the companies. Attack the source, not the simptomes

@razcore Many choices do not automatically mean quality, but often they do, (see BeOS) and they certainly keep pressure on the market for the large ones to keep innovating to stay ahead.
Do you think would move beyond quad-core this year, were it not for the pressure put on them with .
Intel alone shows why should we be against large monopolies with their OEM agreements against AMD etc., same goes for and their recent 'GeForce Partner Program' etc.

@razcore As for the 'blame the system, not the companies', who do you think shaped the system this way, (in their favour?) - the companies did.

No many choices don't often mean anything other than many choices. Quality cones from competition. And I don't think it's fair to single out large companies as the only driving force that shapes "the system". Also large companies are often the reason why open source works in the first place cause they're financing it. All I'm saying is that it's unfair to single then out as evil. They do good and bad


> Quality cones from competition.

Right, and when there aren't many choices, there's no competition. When there are many choices, some will be bad, some good and there will certainly always be a need to not stagnate. I gave you the example of BeOS as a great choice we no longer have. Or Processor Technology Corp, or Acorn Computers or Motorola desktop CPUs, or Commodore, SGCS or even Sun and DEC were all great, quality choices that we no longer have. How's that good?

@razcore I hate this constant 'let's take the middle ground on everything' centrist mantra, like 'is climate change real or not, one side says yes, one no, let's debate!'

I never said everything large companies do is evil. They do not have morals and I don't think their executives think of this in those terms. But many times they do evil and MS has a history of doing mostly that, so I am not comfortable with them holding power over the largest repository of software.

@razcore That doesn't mean I am against the good stuff they do, like for example. I recommend that editor to people, yet am still not comfortable with Microsoft owning GitHub, both of these things can be true, wouldn't you agree?

Yes I do and understand. I just don't think it's in anyone's benefit to jump to conclusions. MS has been involved in a good way in open source so far. Let's wait and see what's gonna happen to GitHub instead of just assuming it's gonna be bad. About the other good alternatives that died out, well if they were so good why did they die? I wonder. I don't know about them so I only have your word that they're good so can't comment on that

> MS has been involved in a good way in open source so far.

I think you're forgetting what I mentioned about their behaviour in the past AND present. I simply refuse to forget the 90s and as I said they're still requiring Android OEMs to pay royalties for their usage of Linux, if they're so good, why not just drop that?

They may/may not do good stuff with GitHub, but nonetheless I'd rather see an overall decentralization of floss from GitHub. It certainly doesn't hurt anything.

> About the other good alternatives that died out, well if they were so good why did they die?

I am surprised you even need to ask this question. Do you believe in the unregulated 'free market'?

What about they lacked the marketing budgets MS had. What could Netscape do when MS bundled IE with every copy of Windows, using it's OS monopoly to push itself into the browser monopoly? What could AMD do if OEMs wouldn't even talk to them because of Intel pressure? This isn't hard.

@razcore Companies like BeOS simply couln't afford to sell their OS to OEMs like MS could etc.

Why could MS do that? Because they got the patronage of IBM via Bill Gateses father, who was a lawyer for IBM, an older monopoly. Pure Luck. Nothing the smaller companies could do here.

Exactly my point. It's the system. And sure companies have a fit in the system, but simply attacking companies is counterproductive. Of course there's still asking for royalties, it's a business. Again, the system. Good doesn't mean you have to give everything you have for free

@razcore What is this mythical 'system'? Who shaped it into what it is today? Who lobbied for the screwed up laws we have today? Companies. Companies like , , etc. The system is not some divine creature that just 'is'.

I don't think pointing out the shit companies do is 'attacking' them, oh, poor companies, paying their workers bellow minimum wage, how they're going to defend themselves from these constant 'attacks'?

Maybe by the CEO getting another yacht.

@razcore My point is simply not to trust Microsoft, a company with a TERRIBLE record with regards to open-source, (even recent, see i.e. in addition to what I already mentioned), and move as much off GitHub as possible, which is a good idea in any case to eliminate a single point of failure,

If they prove themselves to be good stewards, great, still is beneficial to have decentralization. If not, not a lot will be lost.

> Good doesn't mean you have to give everything you have for free

This has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with Microsoft, (among others), lobbying for a patent system that allows them to get ridiculous patents for shit like square shaped windows and double click and similar shit, that you're BOUND TO violate, because it's impossible not to and then they extract money from you via the 'system'.

A 'system' that they shaped, favour them and excludes competition.

Show more
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Matej Lach's mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!