> Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business executives by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values. Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values. The term “open source” quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same association.
> The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand. Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success
People are disappointed because many of us don't trust or like MS and want nothing to do with them, people complain about Google removing their "do no evil" clause, Microsoft basically has a fucking "do evil" clause but they will always tell you the opposite, they are probably even being sincere, it's just not true though.
With these free options available, people in community were less interested in putting effort to free (as in speech) alternatives for these closed source products.
EDIT, yes I am aware that there are some non open parts in Gitlab.com
https://about.gitlab.com/2016/07/20/gitlab-is-open-core-gith...
I thought this was interesting to re-read in light of this news, so I've resubmitted it for discussion:
- Microsoft turned Skype into spyware. Before Microsoft, Skype used encrypted peer-to-peer connections which I'm confident had excellent cryptography given how much it annoyed some governments that Skype couldn't be bugged or monitored.
- Microsoft provides no way to delete chats, voicemails, and video messages, although they give the ridiculous option of "hiding" old conversations as if that's a reasonable substitute for deletion. At this point, it wouldn't be greatly surprising if they record and save all voice calls.
There's inertia in people and companies abandoning Skype because everybody knows it and everyone has it (or had it). But the thing that really preserves Skype is that it can connect from any device to device, including landlines, and it can do all of audio, video, and text.
A Skype-killer product needs (a) to run on all major platforms so you can communicate with someone regardless of whether they are on Windows, OS X, Linux, Android, or iOS, and (b) the ability to make connections to landline phones, (c) do all of audio, video, and text chat, (d) be reliable and trustworthy. That would be the Skype killer.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9786545
But now they're partnering with Signal so maybe that's a good case about how things change over time:
I don't use any microsoft tools (and I _hate_ all windows after 7), so Microsoft integrating with GitHub has no appeal to me.
I think the best case scenario for me personally is that nothing changes. None of the github changes in the past few years have added anything noticeable for me (not sure if others agree, be interested to know). And the best case scenario being "nothing changes" is pretty damning. I know it's overwrought, but Skype was perfect, and 2010s-Microsoft fucked them up. And if we're seriouslyhaving the best case scenario be "nothing changes", that's bad.
And it also just seems part of the bullshit mindset of startups being about the exit, and not about making a new, sustainable company.
GitHub didn't need to do this, but they did, to justify their reportedly insane burn rate. Microsoft still won't let them get away with that, they'll just take the heat for the inevitable layoffs.
It's just fucking depressing all round.
It sounds like they were running out of money. So I guess it makes your experience better in that you get to keep using it.
Github was never an Open Source product itself but sat on top of the Open Source community and used that "goodwill" to license and sell its proprietary software.
Now that another proprietary software-maker has acquired this company, maybe we can all finally adopt the principle that:
> Open Source software needs Open Source tools