This "synergy" seems to be pretty one-sided. Which of these synergies is useful for existing GitHub users? That's kind of the problem with this acquisition, which is why few Github users are excited for it.

It also doesn't feel like Microsoft understands developers or even end users consistently. VSCode is a nice editor, but not the only one. The MSDN docs and site is awful. Azure is okay, but Windows 10 is somehow more annoying than macOS.

Meanwhile Github is in a tricky position, because for most people there's nothing but "community" keeping them on it. Github has some decent features, but nothing so great it would stop me from using their competitors. And they don't even have a CEO to provide the vision. The only thing in their favour is inertia.

You answered it yourself. Github gets money to stay alive, and resources and leadership to actually start building again.

Is Github actually hurting for money? It has to be sitting athwart one of the most reliable rivers of gold amongst the independents.

Github loses 66mm on 98mm in revenue. They're hurting pretty bad.

Is it right to assume that this is because so much of their hosting is for free, open source projects?

And if so, then were open source to move toward GitLab with their even more permissive policies, how could they avoid the same fate?

Hosting is cheap, resources involved would be insignificant.

It's more about having too many people working on non-core products that don't deliver value. Gitlab seems to be doing fine and has built a full-featured CI system in the same time Github has only managed to add a basic project board and include commit messages in search.

I haven't seen all of their balance sheet but I'd guess most of their overhead is in salary, not in hosting.

Forgot to mention previously but GitLab is already on the same fate, waiting for an acquisition or IPO: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17234167

Well, Github execs could do the responsible thing and cut costs. But that sounds hard, and like it would require effort, so here we go. It's sad.

> Which of these synergies is useful for existing GitHub users?

I would say the one that keeps Github alive. That's a pretty major one.

GitHub subscriptions included in msdn?

Probably only avaolable though MSDN , I would guess. When MSDN is extemded to cover Linux as well (not so far fetched with the Linux support in Windows and Visual Studio) this move would also make sense in a weird Microsoft kind of way.

I was thinking part of Office 365 - collaborative dev tools are the missing piece for most businesses.

There wouldn't be a major need for Jira, GitLab, etc for the most part.

I don't know why this is downvoted.

I've worked at two major companies which both used MS Office/Skype for everything and a selfhosted gitlab for code repo.

If the MS package provided git, I'm sure we would be using that instead.

> Microsoft has always been the largest developer advocate of any of the major tech players

That just means that none of the major tech players have been doing a whole lot in this regard.

I miss the comprehensive programming docs from MSDN.

I think that the biggest loser is going to be IBM clearcase. Especially in government/defense work the developers want to use git, but can’t get it because of lack of security reviews. I can guarantee you that Microsoft sales people are already calling every software group manager at all the defense contractors.

Well, clearcase is a horrible monster and it would benefit just about everyone on Earth if it dies.

How many drivers on the road would be less likely to cut someone off or road rage if they didn't have to deal with ClearCase again? I'm sure that number is greater than zero.

I'm only being partially facetious. ClearCase truly is the worst.

I was only an intern when I worked on clearcase so I don’t have a lot of personal experience. But the level of hatred my colleagues showed towards it left an impression.

Can you elaborate on this? Why does using git preclude security reviews?

Any software precludes security reviews in defense work. My group wanted mediawiki to run an internal wiki behind the firewall and it took 18 months to pass and my boss had about a dozen meetings and countless emails. There are cases where a developer had to write code in word because he couldn’t get a text editor (allegedly I didn’t actually witness it). When your network is constantly under state sponsored attack these precautions aren’t pointless. But it takes a company like Microsoft or IBM to be able to work with security reviews and get them through quickly.

Clearcase is a much more advanced tool than git. It is designed to do radically different things from the mere patch relationship management that git performs in its ultra glorified ways.

What are the best capabilities of ClearCase?

The most interesting to me specifically is the ability to define working copies through filter scripts. As far as I understand it, this is an alternative to branching. You can mix and match different components/alternative modules (e.g. different HALs or device drivers for different HW platforms) into sets of products without running afoul of the typical limitations of branches. However, Clearcase is just too expensive for us to even try it out seriously.

I had forgotten about the Atom and VS Code angle of this. I wonder if MS will deprecate Atom in favor of VS Code now...

They can't "depreciate" an OSS project just because it's hosted on a platform they own. Atom will live on one way or another, and it was never exactly tied at the hip with GitHub anyway.

Well, they can stop paying people to work on it and divorce GitHub from it entirely. I’m sure it would still available and worked on though.

Forgot about that too.

Atom is open source though isn't it? So I'm sure it won't ever disappear. I wouldn't want to move to VS Code though. I use a Mac and have heard good things about it, but I'm sure it will always be a second class citizen.

VS Code is ridiculously good, far better than Atom in all areas. I moved from Atom to VS Code on the Mac ~1.5 years ago and have never looked back.

VS Code is actually nearly identical on all platforms just like Atom. I find Atom generally has more available plugins, but VS Code can’t be beat for TypeScript imo.

How has the LinkedIn acquisition benefited LinkedIn users or Microsoft users?

It has allowed LinkedIn to remain free for one customer base (professional networks) while expanding sales and recruiting tools (navigator) without compromising user information (InMail rather than your private email unless you've opted as such).

Well, there haven't been any more password leaks...

That’s an interesting point about Atom and VS Code. Do you think we’ll likely see Atom die in favor of VS Code?

I would put money on it if the merger goes through. There's very little reason for both to exist, and VSCode is absolutely a superior project. Atom has its advantages, but most of them could easily be manifested by collaborating with the Atom team and bringing those features in.

Atom is already dying imo. And if for a reason even a 5 year old can appreciate : it's simply too slow.

I'm starting to get really frustrated with Atom and it pegging my CPUs at 100%. I honestly don't see VSCode as that much better considering they're both bloated electron apps.

I've started going back to Sublime, and found I missed some of the really helpful tools in Atom.

I think the entire atom/vscode thing is going to be really curious should this acquisition go through. I'm going to guess they're going to keep running both teams; or really they'll probably keep running Github as it is.

I switched to VSCode from MacVim. Up until I saw VSCode, I thought all electron apps were as bad as slack. I'm happy to report I've not experienced sluggishness from VSCode at all.

Interestingly enough they're actively working on public vsts repositories, I thought that was devdiv trying to migrate their code back to MS land. Wonder if that's what sparked the conversations.

> Interestingly enough they're actively working on public vsts repositories

Is this public knowledge? They shutdown their public repos service a while back and I had a manager at Microsoft admit that getting public repo traction was insanely hard. GitHub literally has a strangle hold on the public repos space.

This is their blog post on it

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/devops/2018/04/27/vsts-publ...

Thanks for the link. Purchasing GitHub, if true, can certainly complicate things.

>- Github has the Atom team, which would have some great synergies to combine with the VSCode team.

Yes, I'm sure one company will support both editors in the long term.

> They've handled a few pretty well (Linkedin,

what? linkedin became garbage, it's worse facebook with more ads and stupid emails not related to anything I do.

I also see GitHub profile playing well with LinkedIn profile. I've been asked to share my GitHub profile several times during interviews.

What? Microsoft is the biggest developer advocate? Apple gives X Code away for free and made Swift an open source, platform agnostic product among many other things.

> gives X Code away for free

Free with the purchase of Apple hardware. Not exactly "free," is it?

VS Code works on Mac, Linux, and Windows.

Nobody gives hardware for free.

> Nobody gives hardware for free.

Correct. And Apple artificially requires that you have a Mac to develop software for Mac or iOS.

Not even Microsoft does that. I can compile for Windows on any platform.

So, are complaining about the economical factor or an ideological one?

Xcode is the successor to Project Builder, the development environment for NeXT. It is written in Objective-C and AppKit.

Xcode was designed for writing Mac apps, why would anyone want to write Mac apps on a PC, when they'd need a Mac to test them anyway?

It's only after the iPhone that the question of a port to other platforms has arisen. But that would be a huge task equivalent to a full rewrite. Even Apple doesn't have the resources to pull that off smoothly.

> why would anyone want to write Mac apps on a PC, when they'd need a Mac to test them anyway?

There are many reasons. I was going to list a few, but ehh. If you want to know you can probably ask Google or StackOverflow.

And it also charges you 100$ a year plus half of what you earn on their app store.

*30%

Microsoft's revenue split for the Windows Store is an identical 30%[0] (in most cases). There is, of course, the benefit of not having to pay any annual registration fees on Microsoft's platform.

[0]: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/windows/agreements/ap...

Negative. They just announced that developers will receive 95% of revenue for non-games when customers purchase via a deep link, or 85% when its purchased through a discovery mechanism Microsoft provides [1]. Going into affect later this year.

[1] https://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2018/05/07/a-new-micr...

That's good to know. This only applies to what Microsoft calls "consumer non-gaming apps", however. Games and presumably what Microsoft considers professional apps are still subject to the existing fee structure.

For the time being, my comment stands.

That’s only for access to their store. Microsoft is much the same when it comes to the Windows store.

If you want to write apps for macOS and distribute them yourself you can do so with no cost.

VS community is free, as is SQL Express. Net Core is also open source and platform agnostic.

X Code is not a watered down version of something else. It’s the full application Apple uses themselves.

That was absolutely true when VS went by the "Express" moniker, but not today's "Community" edition. The difference between the paid (Pro) and free (Community) version is just licensing^. The Pro also comes with an MSDN subscription. MS is really going after the open source market, they've realized they were losing the future and embraced Linux/MacOS. FWIW, I use both Xcode and VS.

^and some "CodeLense" feature that I've never used.

http://www.visualstudioresources.com/2017/07/09/differences-...