skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This kind of sort-of open source needs a word. Openium source or something. You get the basics under open source with all that implies. And if you want the premium features, that's also there in a sort-of open source way.
this is a normal practice/statement, no meat at all.
I check Facebook at most once every 2 months. HN is my time sink. I should bite the bullet and quit, or maybe just check HN on weekends. This is the wrong place to ask but what the heck, anyone care to share their experience quitting HN?
rather Collaborative Filtering or other kind of recommender
Also supported in products already by Facebook, Google, and even Microsoft. Really disappointed that Apple went their own way on this.
In the end his statement is not against Microsoft but capitalism.
Apple reveals performance-focused iOS 12 for a massive range of iPhones/iPads
I'm split on this one.

I lived through Microsoft's dark ages, when the victory of open source was still hanging by a thread. The reason we're seeing a softer Microsoft is that they lost, they were forced to change. And the open question is what they learned in the process.

On the other hand, they're producing pretty decent software these days; dotNet Core, TypeScript & VSCode just to name a few solid projects. Open source, no less; imagine that back when monkey boy was running the show, literally.

But then I keep hearing about shady Linux licensing deals and endless privacy intrusions over in Windows land.

Tricky indeed, I think I'm going to leave my code in there for now and give them a chance to redeem themselves.
>What will probably is that MS will make optimizations for VS Code to run even better and then make those optimizations open for everyone.

They already could of with the MIT licensed Electron... Literally nothing stopped them from doing this prior, unless the project as said has a bad structure but I find it hard to believe.
I agree, my biggest concerns are:

1. What is happening to Atom? I have tried VS code and don't really like it due to the difference in how the 2 systems are designed to work (Atom being more "plugins are king", VSCode being more "kitchen sink included by first-party"). I'd hate to see my favorite editor lose it's major backing. If MS makes a commitment to continue to develop Atom, or they work with someone else to "transfer" development over to them in a way that's not half-assed, it would go a LONG way toward solidifying the trust they are trying to build (at least to me).

2. How will other companies who are hosting on GitHub react to this? Will Facebook/Google/Apple start pulling their code from GitHub? Will we go back to having to learn how to contribute to each project individually?

There's definitely major benefits for diversity in this area (meaning not having the vast majority of projects on one platform), but I'm hoping we (as developers in whole) don't throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

GitHub has by most accounts helped bring in a renaissance of open source software. It's never been easier to contribute to FOSS at any level, and I'm hoping we don't lose that as everyone diversifies where they host their source code...
I appreciate you getting out here to talk to people and trying to do the best by your platform.

I promise to give y'all a fair shake in the next few months and I wish you the best going forward.
Did the OS keep the data or use it in any way beyond what the OS needed for display etc?
Plants have been uniquely patentable since well before transgenic technology. Oddly enough, people weren't complaining about those greedy, evil plant breeders back in the 1930s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_o...

Perhaps there's some merit to the idea that spending 10, 15, or 20 years developing a new breed should come with a temporary monopoly on said breed? Maybe it's absurd to think you have a sacred right to use newly developed varieties?

Oh, but our food! Well, anything that's more than 20 or 25 years old is perfectly legal for anyone to grow. That's how patents work. Picturesque notions of old-timey agriculture are unaffected.
It is a misquote. See above. He was talking about Linux not open source, and specifically about the licence that Linux has chosen to use.

It would be entirely reasonable to find it an objectionable comment nonetheless, but please find objectionable what he actually said, not some alternative version.
Why would you need a government, even a democratic one, if you had no intention of restricting any individual's freedom?
Those were pretty expensive last I looked. It has a lot of history as a continuation of Jobs' next cube idea. But it was expensive, sold poorly, and was prone to thermal and case damage (at least some things haven't changed...).
Ask HN: Who will acquire GitLab?
Sometimes when a high-profile startup is acquired for a premium, its competitors are also acquired. With the acquisition of GitHub by Microsoft, who will rush to acquire GitLab?
Usdz File Format Specification
It doesnt matter how well Microsoft does anything. The damage is already done. I highly doubt there will ever again be a major international project started on GitHub.
I find it strange that you highlight the "whiteness".
Mafia is mostly a commercial enterprise.
It's neither a superset nor a subset. Some programs cost money to get a copy (or support or whatever), but then once you have the program you can do what you want with it.

Here's the overlap diagram with a bunch more detail. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html
This is a serious question. How old are you? I'm wondering if you were a developer during the 1990s when MS was at its worst. I was and I still harbor deep hatred for all things MS. I wonder if the rest of the "skeptics" are coming from the same time period and those of you who are saying our concerns are unfounded are from a younger generation.
Ask HN: Where should I host my Wordpress website?
I am confused w.r.t. the hosting of my WordPress website.
Google Cloud Platform vs AWS or any other?
I am from India, so suggest me some appropriate plans as I am already short of budget.
None of those are meaningful contributions to existing platforms/projects that MS does not own outright. They're throwing code of the wall. MS's contributions to git are very light.

Edit: clarify my point.
How has gitlab "continued to improve"? They are getting worse. Do you have statistics on their uptime or their performance? Because in my own experience, gitlab.com is going from bad to worse. Their API increasingly returns 503s and timeouts. Their UI is increasingly returning a stale state. One pushes a branch and they say it doesn't exist. One does a git pull and it takes so long one is used to going off and putting the bloody kettle on. They don't know what they're doing. I don't have the time or inclination is to collect demonstrative evidence, but it'll take something to say they are "continuing to improve"!
Yes, their goal was to get under our skin.
Maybe you need to be a music expert to understand if they succeeded, because I don't really get it either.
Ahaha!

Him today: "I may have called Linux a cancer but now I love it"

https://www.zdnet.com/article/ballmer-i-may-have-called-linu...

If you can't beat them, join them.

Honestly though, Microsoft was beat into submission here. Developers and applications (in general) are moving to Linux. Microsoft has no leverage. Sure, buying GitHub may be seen as obtaining leverage, but I think it's clear that you can't strong-arm FOSS sustainably. Free and open is built in.
Chris, the current CEO, was looking for his own replacement.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2017/08/17/github-ce...

The fact that he is now a technical fellow, it seems to me that this is the ideal outcome for all the parties involved.
Wireless system can power devices inside the body
Because the whole "live" account thing is a total mess on their other properties that support it, and github's login system is great?
You make a good point about the just-move-to-Git[whatever] being the entrenched social aspect of many repos! I can't imagine if, say the day comes when developers flee GH en-masse, it will be at all easy to retain the discussion history behind repos.
It's very clear there's several ways they could 'improve' it:

* Replacing Chromium with Edge to improve integration with Windows 10.

* Introducing .NET runtime integration

* SharePoint and O365 integration which with the above would make it almost as powerful as SilverLight

* Cortana support baked-in

* Windows Telemetry
Crazy that everyone in here is defending Facebook.

- How on earth does Facebook justify giving direct API access to information that users have, in every setting possible, marked as private?

- How on earth does Facebook justify offering deep API access on users who have literally disabled API access to their data?

It's ridiculous, and it's more ridiculous that users here are conflating "basic API access with a sane permissions system to give you control" with "deep API access with no privacy controls whatsoever that openly defy existing privacy controls".

It's not acceptable, and frankly, this is EXACTLY why government regulation of data online isn't a possibility, it's an inevitability. Because when the penalty for ignoring the user's selection of "DO NOT MAKE MY DATA AVAILABLE OVER THE API" and "DO NOT MAKE MY DATA AVAILABLE TO FRIENDS OF MY FRIENDS" etc is now billions of dollars in damages and potentially criminal charges for executives, magically, these violations will stop occuring.

Until then, everything in this document is either a lie or sufficiently legalese'd that it's worthless, just like the lies that they told to Congress, just like Zuckerberg's lies to E.U. as well.

I cannot wait until it is a crime to share private user data against their will. We live in a wild west and the past 10-15 years are proving just how much sheer damage we have caused in society by not criminalizing disrespect of digital privacy.
> These partners signed agreements that prevented people’s Facebook information from being used for any other purpose than to recreate Facebook-like experiences.

hahahaha lolololol
GitHub scared shitless
> pricing structure for a single dev is seriously uncompetitive

$7/month is a burden? What's it competing with except a fancy coffee or two?
Free Software and Open Source's differences are more philosophical than technical/legal [0]. This means that if something cannot be Free Software it cannot, more often than not, be Open Source either.

If you cannot deploy it without a paid subscription, it's not Open Source by most commonly accepted definitions of the term.

----

[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.en....
CRDTs and the Quest for Distributed Consistency
I just checked. Nat Friedman hasn't made a public commit on Github since August 2015. And if you care to look deeper, since 2010, not much at all.

https://github.com/natfriedman
> The downvotes seem reflective of a delusion in the tech community

The downvotes seem reflective of the reality that the vast, vast majority of present landmass will be perfectly dry with a 10m rise in sea levels.

Climate change risks are bad enough. Hyperbole doesn't make it any scarier, and is unnecessary.
And does it upset you that when a user signs into facebook in one of these browsers, facebook allows the browser access to that user's data and even data of that user's friends? Even when those friends have explicitly disabled sharing of facebook data with third parties?
> Projects that follow the "open core" model bother me when they gate useful features behind their paid version like Gitlab does.

I understand that criticism, but what else would you gate except useful features? The entire point of this style of sales is to enable a "freemium" model with highly valuable features locked behind the pay-gate.
"scroll from page to page. Each new page appears blurry - or, if lucky, merely wonky - for a fraction of a second, then replaced with the clearer rendering one might expect."

THIS drives me nuts.
I recognize this isn't an opinion that will resonate with many, but I find it offensive that Github praises and benefits so much from open source, yet is not open source itself. This has bothered me for many years.

Now this post from Nat, talking about how open source literally changed his life and made all things possible (which I agree with), bothers me even more. How can you say such things when your actions are so completely opposite? The hypocrisy is appalling to me.

Don't misunderstand, I do think Github has done great things for open source. However, it's time for them to either practice what they preach (open the code) or else we need to move to gitlab of gitea or something else.

I'm actually a bit optimistic that MS might open source github in the long run. It's a long shot, but they have really been incredible with how much they have opened up. I'm more optimistic now with MS at the reins.
LLVM's JIT is in a sense different from that of, say, PyPy. It's more primitive. When people talk about JIT in the context of LLVM, they mean the set of APIs provided by LLVM's library. That is, give it a set of IR functions, and things they depend on, the library dynamically compiles and links them for you. More concretely, for example, given the IR of a function, it gives you a raw pointer to the compiled version that you can call directly. It takes care of the boring (and often platform dependent) parts efficiently -- code gen, linking, etc -- so that you can focus on generating efficient IR (which is the hard part for a JIT).
That article is written using very inflammatory language -- I am very wary to take it at face value, because an author using this kind of language is very unlikely to deeply analyze what Ballmer actually said. Furthermore, this was said two decades ago. Take it with a grain of salt.
I feel a bit better knowing Nat Friedman will be CEO. He does have a history with OSS software projects and also running such companies.

I hope that things don't change. I have come to rely on GitHub and I don't want to go investing in another solution.
Agreed. I personally prefer the term libre software because it is entirely unambiguous
It looks like they were expecting everything but mass panic.

Well developers aren't skype's users.
Yes, so it might be OK for software written by a third party to access FB with the second party's authentication and privileges, when running on the second party's device.

But that doesn't make it OK for that data to be stored on the third party's servers or be otherwise available to the third party.
Per the article, the baker did not know a specific design, he categorically refused to make any custom cake for them.

>The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that Mr. Phillips’s free speech rights had not been violated, noting that the couple had not discussed the cake’s design before Mr. Phillips turned them down.
I suspect you’ve been hearing it a lot because more and more people are starting code while very young.
I’m certainly not the best coder in the world, but I was “coding” in Logo (for example) from a very young age. Lots of kids are interested in computers and the barrier to entry is pretty low.
> But one could argue that those contributions to git are just to further MS's interests.

Of course they are! Everything a corporation does is to further its own interests. Most (large) companies don't contribute to open source out of the goodness of their hearts.
I think another thing that bothers me about this mindset is that we have started viewing "consumer" action as the only valid response, which is really convenient for some people for the reasons you mention.

But in a society where citizens are represented by elected officials, regulations are "citizen" action. Regulations should not be viewed as any less legitimate than consumer action, they are just enacted through a proxy mechanism, aka elected officials.

This whole bifurcation of regulation vs consumer boycott, and the subsequent push to delegitimize regulation seems pretty artificial, and more importantly, a huge benefit to people looking to avoid any sort of boundaries on their actions.
I cut my teeth on blockchain...

(...a string of wooden blocks I teethed on.)
You don't need to have the app on your phone to use Facebook as an identity provider. I haven't had the app on my phone in over 4 years and the very few services that do require using them for authentication work just fine.
Even if the ice caps completely melt, finding dry land isn't going to be a problem. We'll have plenty of other problems, but that's not one of them.
> If the NSA felt like spying on you, pro tip, they're gonna be able to do it.

True, but I suppose it matters how easy/difficult it is for them to do that.
Alfresco does this as well, and they removed things that worked in the community edition, like clustering, requiring people either switch to the EE version or implement the missing/removed features themselves as a plugin or fork.

TypeSafe/LightBend removed a fully functional MS SQL implementation from Slick.

I've written about this type of split in OSS software and what it means for developers:

https://penguindreams.org/blog/the-philosophy-of-open-source...
Nope, you know that once the data leaves your server it is out of your control. These companies could have fooled fb representatives quite easily if they wanted.
This brings up a point that has long puzzled me: why is it so uncommon for podcasters to write out what they intend to say? It seems like it would eliminate a lot of the misspeech, circumlocution, and unclearness that make podcasts so frustrating to listen to for me. It would also eliminate the need for transcription after the fact.
Very true. It would be awesome to see Gitlab or somebody else make this possible somehow.
https://twitter.com/githubclippy/status/1003630360008253441
Folks tend to forget about Scott Guthrie (and Scott Hanselman, Rob Conery, Scott Galloway and a few other unsung heros) and the change he seeded within MS's DevDiv about moving to a more open culture back around 2005/6.
I am genuinly curious about your view, so please be patient with me when answering.

The way I see it, someone is providing a free product and is maintaining it. They are even doing (imho) a great job. Of course, that costs money - and we only need to look at other opensource solutions to see what kind of UX they have if the creators are only charging for support.

So the options I see are:

- have a worse product, but truly opensource
- have a great product, fully opensource, but some features will never be added

If you develop the missing features, you would need to maintain a clone. You could do it if you really wanted to, it would take a lot less work than developing the whole solution from stratch. But - and this distinction is important for me - if the company ever went under or, worse, got sold to Oracle, community would almost surely take the CE sources, add those features and maintain a clone. At least for a while...

In my view GitLab is a perfect example how to make a sustainable business around opensource core. So the question is - can you think of a better sustainable business model to support development of opensource solution?
When they kill the Octocats I will get a life crisis. And I am a Microsoft fan.
Would it be OK for a gay baker to refuse to make a cake with the inscription "Celebrating the third anniversary of the Pulse Night Club shooting" if the cake was being requested by someone whose religious teachings preach that homosexuality is a sin and those who engage in the practice should be killed?

Or how about for a gay coffee shop owner to kick Christians out of his shop because he disagrees with their belief system. See Bedlam Coffee in Seattle.
No, per the article the baker was not refusing to "make a cake with a specific message", he refused to make any custom cake for gay couples.

>The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that Mr. Phillips’s free speech rights had not been violated, noting that the couple had not discussed the cake’s design before Mr. Phillips turned them down.
Congrats Nat! Best of luck for this future endeavor :).
What stops Google from forming a shell corp to handle government contracts? They can profit off the shell corp while allowing them unfettered, royalty free access to their internal technology. They can staff the shell corp with smart people who aren't anti-government, and even continue to employ them at Google so no one knows what's going on.
Which newspapers Black Cube contacted tells us so much about what goes on behind the scene.
Fossil – A high-reliability distributed software configuration management system
Welp, back to normal now. Really slow.
> When you enter your username and password in order to view your Facebook feed — that’s called a “user agent” and that’s something appreciably different than a third party quiz app sucking in friend feed data.

I think we're trying to make this different in hindsight, but APIs for this sort of thing are the replacement for "please give my app your Facebook password". I hope everyone remembers how Facebook used to ask users for their GMail password and how Mint (still) asks users for their banking passwords.

And if what you are doing is "giving an app access to my account", then letting them see everything you see is a pretty natural API.

I think over time we have realised that users want more fine-grained permissions so they don't have to make such difficult decisions of whether they "trust" an app, but I know that as a developer and user I get pretty annoyed when other software cannot interact with an app for me because the API is too limiting.
That's actually more common then you think.
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/banned-europe-...
I feel the same way about people who unironically write M$ to be honest. It's a counter-brand they've elected to champion, and more power to them.

That said, it feels lazy and deeply mired in a Browser Wars-era IRC discussion about wether Netscape Navigator or Lynx is the way forward. Or any other, equally tedious, period of paeolithic tech history.

Microdollaroft have been pretty well behaved recently, especially with regards to their developer stuff. Heck, I'd even argue forced updates to a desktop os used by huge swaths of non technical users may not quite be up there with Hanz Fritzel in terms of taking people's freedom away.

But then I generally don't have an ideological standpoint on which operating system, text editor or source control I'm using as long as I can get work done, so perhaps I'm just a bit of a weirdo.

In the end as long as companies people traditionally dislike try to make money, there will be people who traditionally dislike them there to remind everybody about the time a previous CEO said something egregious or they attempted to build a monopoly of some description (aka being a very successful business)
A lot of podcasts are adhoc conversations between multiple people
This is why someplace where I work there is a computer in a closet that has Windows XP service pack 1, and all the software required to build the code we were working on then. I work in embedded systems, there is always the possibility that we will decide to fix a bug in some old controller that we last sold 12 years ago. I don't think anybody who knows the code is left, but the computers sit, just in case.

NASA should take that to heart and make sure they keep a few old computers in a closed until the last satellite is confirmed de-orbited. Note that this advice only applies to believed dead satellites, satellites that are still in use presumably have a team porting software to something more modern as needed.

Better yet NASA should do what we are attempting: repeatable builds in a container. If I can install a Ubuntu 10 container on whatever the latest linux is and build, I can throw away the Ubuntu 10 computer. This test can be automated with reasonable confidence and low cost.