May love2d planned move to github?

[shru]

Spinning "[Microsoft-owned] GitHub started offering unlimited free private repositories" as an "evil" or "malicious" act is incoherent and should be unconvincing to anyone who doesn't operate with the presupposition that everything Michaelsoft does is necessarily of nefarious intent.

[milon]

If they hold to their track record, this is just the first 2 steps of the MS takeover style: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_ ... extinguish

Intentionally driving out all others to create your own monopoly is, at best, selfish. It's pretty much the corporate version of gentrification. As far as whether that's evil or cunning, it's a moot point. I'm probably getting on a tangent here, but the Better World Shopper (a public research project for ethical consumers) has graded Microsoft as F, "These companies have the worst social and enviromental records in the industry". This is worse than D, "These engage in practices that have significant negative impacts on people and the planet". It doesn't go into detail on their website, but I've got the book at home. I'll check it and post some more details when I get home, assuming I don't forget, but they're involved in some truly terrible things - as are most major corporations, sadly. Ethically speaking, Microsoft is evil. That's not to say that everything they do is evil, but "doing good" simply doesn't remove the evil that they also do.

Just my $0.02 USD

(I must sound like a hippie now, haha!)

EDIT - Got off work early today. Anyway, in the Computers & Accessories category, Microsoft is labelled "Corporate Villain", which means they're the worst of the worst. Better World Shopper cites these reasons:
* F for overall social responsibility
* Named "abusive monopoly" by US Court
* Paid $150 million to Washington lobbyists
* Greenpeace "Green Electronics Laggard"
* Refuses disclosure on its businesses

[keharriso]

* Named "abusive monopoly" by US Court

Just want to point out that this was 20 years ago.

* Paid $150 million to Washington lobbyists

Microsoft pays about $10 million per year in lobbying.
Alphabet pays about $20 million in lobbying.
Does that make Alphabet twice as evil as Microsoft in terms of lobbying?

* Greenpeace "Green Electronics Laggard"

You might find that the past 5 years worth of news Greenpeace has on Microsoft is positive. This includes investments in wind energy and leaving ALEC.

I also can't find anything on-line mentioning the "Green Electronics Laggard" title.

[pgimeno]

Spinning "[Microsoft-owned] GitHub started offering unlimited free private repositories" as an "evil" or "malicious" act is incoherent and should be unconvincing to anyone who doesn't operate with the presupposition that everything Michaelsoft does is necessarily of nefarious intent.

I believe in giving opportunities, but within reasonable limits. MS has done the same bad thing 100 times. I have no reason to believe the 101st has a different, innocent purpose.

Just want to point out that this was 20 years ago.

And they repeated 15 years ago, in 2004. After they were found guilty, they kept doing the same nevertheless, and it wasn't until 2009, just 10 years ago, that the issue got settled, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... ition_case for reference. Just see how quickly they lost their dominant position in the market afterwards, because their product sucked; it was the dominant one just because it was forced down our throats, but as soon as it competed in fair conditions, it started losing market share.

And well, Skype has gone downhill after it was taken over by MS. And GitHub will probably end up the same way.

[keharriso]

Just want to point out that this was 20 years ago.

And they repeated 15 years ago, in 2004. After they were found guilty, they kept doing the same nevertheless, and it wasn't until 2009, just 10 years ago, that the issue got settled, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... ition_case for reference. Just see how quickly they lost their dominant position in the market afterwards, because their product sucked; it was the dominant one just because it was forced down our throats, but as soon as it competed in fair conditions, it started losing market share.

And well, Skype has gone downhill after it was taken over by MS. And GitHub will probably end up the same way.

Fair enough. I guess it just comes down to me having more faith in Satya Nadella than Steve Ballmer. I don't think you're necessarily wrong to oppose MS, given their track record. I do think any move made in terms of hosting platforms is mostly limited by changing bugs/issues trackers. The actual history of the project is completely protected in our local copies.

I suppose your argument would be that Microsoft would seek the termination of alternatives like GitLab and Bitbucket. If this is the case, then how would LÖVE, a project using the Bitbucket platform for free, help prevent this monopoly? What is the level of opposition we can reasonably expect to mount against Microsoft's plans merely by avoiding their platform (without paying to support its competitors)? Maybe we can avoid GitHub's advertising/partnerships/sponsorships/tools? Prevent ourselves from "becoming the product"?

In any case, I stand by what I've said -- there's no evidence yet of wrongdoing. I suppose time will tell.

[pgimeno]

I suppose your argument would be that Microsoft would seek the termination of alternatives like GitLab and Bitbucket. If this is the case, then how would LÖVE, a project using the Bitbucket platform for free, help prevent this monopoly? What is the level of opposition we can reasonably expect to mount against Microsoft's plans merely by avoiding their platform (without paying to support its competitors)? Maybe we can avoid GitHub's advertising/partnerships/sponsorships/tools? Prevent ourselves from "becoming the product"?

I was just opposing the suggestion to move LÖVE to GitHub. I don't think LÖVE needs to actively do anything about it. As for individual actions, I am personally going to close my account there in a few days.

In the interwebs, if we use a company's service, we're the product (that's not the case with NotABug.org in particular because it's not run for profit). Yes, avoiding it is one way to fight against it. The more users, the more people join. MS knows that well and publicizes the success of their products, often deceptively.

[monolifed]

Microsoft gets rid of some open source extremists without doing anything

[pgimeno]

Microsoft gets rid of some open source extremists without doing anything

Calling people who are opposed to monopolies and favour consumer choice, "extremists", is not nice.

It also has nothing to do with open source.

[keharriso]

I'd like to think the LÖVE community can have a proper discussion without resorting to personal attacks.

[monolifed]

There is a reason it was a quote. I am not calling anyone anything. Think of it as a headline, neither accurate nor subtle and mostly gullible