I heard Microsoft is buying Github. Since Lichess' code is on Github, would that affect us in any way?
Clippy will be available during games to help you find the best moves.
Probably not us, the players, but I could imagine the devs are gonna use another site instead. A lot of projects already moved over to GitLab
@lovlas YESSSSSSS
__
/ \ _____________
| | / \
@ @ | I would |
|| || | recommend|
|| || <--| 1. d4 |
|\_/| | |
\___/ \_____________/
/ \ _____________
| | / \
@ @ | I would |
|| || | recommend|
|| || <--| 1. d4 |
|\_/| | |
\___/ \_____________/
well, that didn't work, should have been clippy :/
clippy lol :D
Yeah, it was on my mind this weekend. (Whether or not to post something. After seeing hints last week, and rumors of an anticipated announcement this weekend.) -- But, official news announced today (Monday).
I thought to myself: Well, it doesn't impact LiChess (proper), the players, the website, etc. And, Microsoft has been open-sourcing and embracing open-source for the last few years. I wonder if there will be a change?
I can't shake the feeling that this is somehow bad for a lot of open-source projects ... having a major corporation with a strong closed-source mindset own and be responsible for a large open-source repository.
I think my bigger fear or worry about this move is that of (code) censorship; Microsoft's thumb on the scale. For example: If Microsoft fails to address a reported vulnerability in a reasonable time-frame, and the authors then publish code examples and technical details ... what does Microsoft do? Oh, "Bing" -- We'll just zap that repo and warn the security researcher not to publish things without our consent (or, if published elsewhere, punish that person's GitHub account). Or, if another major corp (i.e. Cisco or Oracle) complains to Microsoft, and Microsoft slips its thumb on the scale.
Then there's Nat Friedman. I'm not a fan of Xamarin. (Pain is the first word that comes to mind.) The reason Microsoft acquired Xamarin was its stack integration, and profitability. And Xamarin sucked when I used it (before abandoning Microsoft). Support sucked; and builds were unreliable and unstable and not as easily managed in the "cross-platform" sense of cross-compiling from C# to whatever Android or iDevice targets. (Yeah, Pain.)
I'm not a fan of Atlassian and BitBucket. (Same Corporate-type mindset.) That leaves something like GitLab. (And you don't want to self-host GitLab; better to pay to have it hosted.)
And, finally ... TechCrunch wrote this: "Microsoft has long embraced the Git protocol" -- Which is patently false. I've been using git since 2010. Microsoft only really started supporting Visual Studio integration back in 2012 or 2013, and fully started supporting it in VS 2015 (and it's now 2018). Before that, Microsoft was pushing VS Foundation Team Server (which is not the git protocol), and Git integration was completely 3rd party. I remember when the 3rd party extensions I'd been using for a few years stopped working because Microsoft integrated their own. -- If there's anything to come, here's yer sign.
Sorry, I didn't realize I had so much to say on the matter. Opinionated much, huh?
I thought to myself: Well, it doesn't impact LiChess (proper), the players, the website, etc. And, Microsoft has been open-sourcing and embracing open-source for the last few years. I wonder if there will be a change?
I can't shake the feeling that this is somehow bad for a lot of open-source projects ... having a major corporation with a strong closed-source mindset own and be responsible for a large open-source repository.
I think my bigger fear or worry about this move is that of (code) censorship; Microsoft's thumb on the scale. For example: If Microsoft fails to address a reported vulnerability in a reasonable time-frame, and the authors then publish code examples and technical details ... what does Microsoft do? Oh, "Bing" -- We'll just zap that repo and warn the security researcher not to publish things without our consent (or, if published elsewhere, punish that person's GitHub account). Or, if another major corp (i.e. Cisco or Oracle) complains to Microsoft, and Microsoft slips its thumb on the scale.
Then there's Nat Friedman. I'm not a fan of Xamarin. (Pain is the first word that comes to mind.) The reason Microsoft acquired Xamarin was its stack integration, and profitability. And Xamarin sucked when I used it (before abandoning Microsoft). Support sucked; and builds were unreliable and unstable and not as easily managed in the "cross-platform" sense of cross-compiling from C# to whatever Android or iDevice targets. (Yeah, Pain.)
I'm not a fan of Atlassian and BitBucket. (Same Corporate-type mindset.) That leaves something like GitLab. (And you don't want to self-host GitLab; better to pay to have it hosted.)
And, finally ... TechCrunch wrote this: "Microsoft has long embraced the Git protocol" -- Which is patently false. I've been using git since 2010. Microsoft only really started supporting Visual Studio integration back in 2012 or 2013, and fully started supporting it in VS 2015 (and it's now 2018). Before that, Microsoft was pushing VS Foundation Team Server (which is not the git protocol), and Git integration was completely 3rd party. I remember when the 3rd party extensions I'd been using for a few years stopped working because Microsoft integrated their own. -- If there's anything to come, here's yer sign.
Sorry, I didn't realize I had so much to say on the matter. Opinionated much, huh?
#8 Microsoft can't efficaciously make threats unless they have a monopoly on the open-source Git marketplace.
Honestly I think what MSFT has to gain is easy access to high-quality open source code and data (and other open source code and data). But it seems like a large investment for something I can't imagine them using much...
Honestly I think what MSFT has to gain is easy access to high-quality open source code and data (and other open source code and data). But it seems like a large investment for something I can't imagine them using much...
#9 -- Except for now being able to peek behind the scenes of paid, private repos. That gives a HUGE market-place advantage in terms of acquisitions, etc.
Imagine if you're starting to develop something novel and interesting that could change the world, and it comes across the attention of someone at Microsoft -- let's take a peek at how that's done since that (person or company) pays for a private repo to manage that project at one of our companies ... Or, even more aptly ... consider the term "patent troll" in this regard. Or, the next generation of data aggregation and snooping on individuals, or gaining the upper-hand in terms of acquiring talent, etc. (So many ways this acquisition can be abused, it's not funny -- and especially not funny given Microsoft is acquiring GitHub.)
These are the considerations that only come along after-the-fact. Where market-regulatory bodies or entities should come into play. (And economics like that are a whole other topic, but become relevant and do come into play; but nobody's thinking about that before the deal is done and doesn't need regulatory approval. -- And nobody likes over-bearing regulation or compliance constraints. Market efficiency is best. When someone's thumb isn't on the scale.)
Imagine if you're starting to develop something novel and interesting that could change the world, and it comes across the attention of someone at Microsoft -- let's take a peek at how that's done since that (person or company) pays for a private repo to manage that project at one of our companies ... Or, even more aptly ... consider the term "patent troll" in this regard. Or, the next generation of data aggregation and snooping on individuals, or gaining the upper-hand in terms of acquiring talent, etc. (So many ways this acquisition can be abused, it's not funny -- and especially not funny given Microsoft is acquiring GitHub.)
These are the considerations that only come along after-the-fact. Where market-regulatory bodies or entities should come into play. (And economics like that are a whole other topic, but become relevant and do come into play; but nobody's thinking about that before the deal is done and doesn't need regulatory approval. -- And nobody likes over-bearing regulation or compliance constraints. Market efficiency is best. When someone's thumb isn't on the scale.)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.