Yeesh, what you described is NOT a VCS, that is more like github or gitlab, not ‘git’, so you were comparing a VCS against an entire code management pipeline, that is entirely a wrong comparison to make, I’m not even sure how such a wrong comparison like that could be done… If you are comparing git to VSTS then you should be comparing git to just VSTS’s VCS part (which, as stated, last I saw was an abhorrant locking mess, hopefully that’s changed now). o.O
Just… that is a surprising comparison to make, that’s like comparing Elixir to the linux kernel itself, they are entirely different things on entirely different levels that just so happen to interact but make absolutely no sense to compare… O.o…
EDIT: or maybe more accurately comparing HTML to a Firefox, it’s a nonsensical comparison… o.O
Sure you could compare the HTML standard to Firefox’s specific implementation, but not to Firefox as a whole, it just makes no sense… o.O
Who are you talking to? I have never compared Github to VSTS or Gitlab as it would make no sense in my context. Github wouldn’t even be in the running for what I need to do.
That’s what I’m saying, Github/Gitlab (both of which have self-hosting capabilities) or any of the others do indeed make a logical comparison to VSTS, but comparing just the ‘git’ spec to the entirety of VSTS makes absolutely no sense, that’s the part that is confusing me. ‘How’ do you compare git to VSTS, that’s like comparing git to GitLab, or comparing the HTML spec to Firefox… I’m not finding the logic in the comparisons, it’s confusing me… o.O
Ahh I think I misread (wrong post ordering, I wish discourse was more Reddit’y than Forum’y), that makes more sense! My brain is resolved. ^.^
Yeah I’m not sure I’d pick gitlab either, apparently VSTS uses git now so if someone could afford it then it seems like a great option. Gitlab is just sooooo sloooow (at least when I tried to run it on a server that was way more powerful than what it needed by about 16 cores and 60 gigs of ram).
GitHub does have self-hosting options though, should have kept it in the running, it has a lot of integrations.
Hmm, as long as the Reply is clicked on the post itself and not the thread I’ve never not seen it work yet? Even then the reply listing are not very good in Discourse because it’s all linearized anyway (I do wish discourse was more tree-based instead linear). If you have a reproducible test-case do report it to the Discourse issue tracker though.
It was my error as there is a reply button below the thread and also below an individual post.
Believe me if VSTS wasn’t the best I’d go Gitlab but it’s not been easy to setup and I have so many things I need to do I really need to focus on the most important which, atm, seems to be the Elixir connections handler. Not sure if that’s something I should make open source.
I’ve been trying to open source everything to github the past few years, I have SUBSTANTIALLY more code on bitbucket and my own SVN server, even lately only about 50% of my new code is on github (<5% over all time). You’d be surprised at just what is useful and helpful to others, as well as others finding bugs you never do. I’ve learned it is always worth it to open the code up, if you really need to protect it then use a stronger license like GPL or so but in general don’t, just use Apache or so.
You don’t - if you’re replying to a person click on the reply button inside their post. The forum will not include the the person’s avatar in your own post if their post is directly above yours
In other words, Microsoft is not paying $7.5 billion for GitHub for its ability to make money (its financial value). It’s paying for the access it gets to the legions of developers who use GitHub’s code repository products on a daily basis (the company’s strategic value) — so they can be guided into the Microsoft developer environment, where the real money is made.
I think it might want to say “Azure” because I doubt that anyone is willing to change to C# now that is open source, or even SQLServer just because of GitHub, they might want to make apps portable from GitHub to be deployable to Azure, then making money from this “easy sloth lock”. Also I think M$ was willing to pay that much for the code that is hosted on it, so they can improve their AI of Visual Studio (More Licensing), without the need to explain to everyone that they are scraping all repositories from GitHub
We tried to move from github to gitlab (gitlab.com not self hosted) at work a while ago. It was a so unbelievably slow we had to move back in a couple of weeks. Also they go down soo often. Every deploy seem to force them to take everything down and then something broke so they didn’t come back up. Totally unusable for a company. It’s probably better when self hosted but we don’t want to do that.
I wondered whether this is some peculiar move in an attempt to capture more of the serverless market (if it is, I’m still scratching my head). Amazon seems to be going after fresh developers - so this is Microsoft going after the active developer population?
It certainly feels like Amazon, Microsoft and Google are trying to strong-arm the future into serverless because “computing-power as a utility” has lots of profit potential for them. And while it has its place, I can’t help but feel that they are forcing the technology on the market in such a way that it’s going to result in one nasty hangover for most of the people involved.
I partially agree. Microsoft is the most subtle tech giant since Satya Nadella.
On the other hand my paranoid half kicks in and believes they’ll just run tremendous analytics on all the code and use a lot for themselves and windows/azure/office features.
