> I think the Microsoft of today is very different from the Microsoft of the nineties.

If they've managed to change that much, then nothing prevents them to make the opposite turn and return to the monopolistic Microsoft as soon as a new CEO steps in.

That's why I prefer Microsoft to stay away from the products and projects everybody loves. Furthermore, I don't think Microsoft has anything to contribute to GitHub.

> I don't think Microsoft has anything to contribute to GitHub.

Microsoft has experience handling online code repositories and team services. Azure integration has the potential to improve deployment pipelines for many users. Microsoft has lots of experience doing things at scale, and can potentially find cost reduction maneuvers for Github. Visual Studio integration can bring more users to Github. Cooperate users are more likely to upgrade their existing agreement with Microsoft than they are to enter a finical relationship with a new company. Microsoft has just as much or more to offer Github as any other top 5 tech company.

Azure, VS... Yes, I know Microsoft has tons of things to offer to their customers. But not everybody in Github is into Microsoft tech. In fact, most are not. So that's what worries me: trying to tie Github to their products and strategies.

It might happen, but I suspect they will continue to play nice with other tech stacks. Their recent strategy is to provide good tech that can integrate with other tech, to compete on superior products instead of locking in users. They haven't recently extended or extinguished, just embraced, and embracing has done great things for their stock price.

Let's not forget that they developed GVFS to support large monorepos.

Let's also not forget this only runs on Windows.

They've stated that they want to bring this to other platforms as well.

https://github.com/Microsoft/GVFS/issues/4

Yes they want... yet it has been Windows only for a year and a half, so far. That's the problem with Microsoft buying big things like Github. It turns people not using their flagship OS into second class citizens.

Re: Skype

Their MacOS implementation that they linked to is pretty cool and understandable even for a filesystem lay-person.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/devops/2018/03/15/gvfs-for-...

GVFS is a contribution Microsoft has given git, not a contribution Microsoft can bring to Github. That is why I left it out.

> then nothing prevents them to make the opposite turn and return to the monopolistic Microsoft

Well, the world has changed and there is no longer any opportunity for a 90s Microsoft. So I'm pretty sure that unless the world changes back to the 90s, Microsoft wouldn't survive such a turn.

That's like saying IBM could come back as a monopoly. It won't happen even if they want it to.

How is Microsoft different exactly?

Do they not engage in patents racketeering?

Do they not spy on users of Windows 10?

> like most (all?) other big tech companies

"The other children are doing it" and then you're mother would say "that doesn't make it right". It's a child's defense no doubt.

But anyway, it's also factually not true.

I'd say that Microsoft is worse than most other companies because it caters to governments, not consumers. Skype and MSN mysteriously worked in China at a time when no other service did. What's their incentive to push back against LE backdoors when they're not an edgy consumer brand anyway?

"caters to governments"

Corporations only exist as legal constructs. I'm not trying to be pedantic. I'm just saying that it is always going to be the case that a business, any business, will work within the law and with lawful government because they ultimately depend on contract and property law.

All companies have to comply with the law, but Microsoft sells lots of software to governments. They aren't going to put up a fight over end-user privacy if they make more money from gov't contracts than from privacy-conscious consumers. The financial incentives are completely different than for e.g. Apple, and I don't see how that is ever going to change.

All companies, including Apple sell lots of products to the government because, next to Walmart, its the largest employer in the country. It has a $4T budget.

Apple doesn't give a s* about your privacy. They claim to give a s* about your privacy. Those are different things.

If you want this to change you have to get involved with legislation to change the rules/law. That's the only option. None of them "care" about you or really anything, because they aren't human. Companies respond to changes in the law which bound the approved set of behaviors. That's it.

EDIT: I got the budget wrong. Changed that.

I don't care what Apple claims to care about, just like I don't care about Microsoft's newfound love for free software (haha).

However, I highly doubt that government and enterprise purchases make up a large share of Apple's income. And consequently I'm convinced that news of a backdoor in iMessage would cause Apple way more financial damage than these things did to Microsoft: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5728294, https://www.scmagazineuk.com/skype-backdoor-missed-by-micros... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-...

And the more Apple doubles down on protecting its users, the bigger this financial incentive becomes. Of course that doesn't stop me from supporting better legislation (GDPR was a great start).

I reviewed the data that Microsoft has on me and there is nothing in there that makes me feel uncomfortable. Facebook on the other hand.. not only is the data wrong but if it gets public I can see it damaging me

I just want to point out, aside from the discussion, that Microsoft owns a significant stake in Facebook.

Maybe they should rebrand themselves then.. A new name perhaps? :)