<div dir="ltr">Even if off topic, please do post again when you get the context behind Microsoft's acquisitions going sour. I would love to read it.<div><br></div><div>Until then, I need to migrate my own stuff to GitLab.</div><div><br></div><div>GH</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 1:12 PM, Rob Landley <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rob@landley.net" target="_blank">rob@landley.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 06/05/2018 05:34 AM, Reverend Homer wrote:> On 05/06/18 08:34, Rob Landley wrote:<br>
>> On 06/04/2018 01:04 AM, Reverend Homer wrote:<br>
>>> gitlab? cgit @ <a href="http://landley.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">landley.net</a>?<br>
>><br>
>> Maybe gitlab. <br>
> <br>
> I take it back. Gitlab is hosted at Microsoft Azure.<br>
<br>
</span>Eh, hosted isn't the same as owned by.<br>
<br>
Running on commodity linux containers in the azure cloud probably isn't<br>
noticeably worse than running on commodity rackmount whiteboxes in some nameless<br>
low-bidder data center in houston? The point of all that infrastructure is to be<br>
fungible. (I'd never trust _proprietary_ data to them because I fully expect<br>
they're snooping the contents of every container for secrets to copy. But if<br>
it's public stuff that's cryptographically verifiable? They can't do much worse<br>
than sourceforge...)<br>
<br>
"Owned by microsoft" is a problem because historically every acquisition<br>
microsoft's ever made involved the entire staff of the original company leaving<br>
and the technology being taken over by bureaucrats, and there's a _reason_ for<br>
this that requires a lot of context to explain. More than I want to post on a<br>
technical mailing list for an unrelated project.<br>
<br>
Properly explaining what really worries me about the github acquisition requires<br>
understanding a business framework I wrote about long ago based on chapter 12 of<br>
the book "Accidental Empries" mixed with bits of the mythical man-month and the<br>
innovator's dilemma. It was the most popular series I ever wrote at The Motley<br>
Fool and I saved a link to an australian author reviewing my article series for<br>
a german magazine:<br>
<br>
  <a href="http://landley.net/writing/#3waves" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://landley.net/writing/#<wbr>3waves</a><br>
<br>
In 2016 I gave a talk at the Flourish conference on that with updated material<br>
and so on, and they never posted the video they recorded. I has a sad about<br>
that, I wasn't jetlagged or anything!<br>
<br>
Sigh. Looks like the most recent attempt I did to update the explanation was in<br>
2011:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://landley.net/notes-2011.html#01-12-2011" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://landley.net/notes-<wbr>2011.html#01-12-2011</a><br>
<a href="https://landley.net/notes-2011.html#02-12-2011" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://landley.net/notes-<wbr>2011.html#02-12-2011</a><br>
<a href="https://landley.net/notes-2011.html#04-12-2011" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://landley.net/notes-<wbr>2011.html#04-12-2011</a><br>
<a href="https://landley.net/notes-2011.html#05-12-2011" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://landley.net/notes-<wbr>2011.html#05-12-2011</a><br>
<a href="https://landley.net/notes-2011.html#06-12-2011" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://landley.net/notes-<wbr>2011.html#06-12-2011</a><br>
<span class=""><br>
>> <...><br>
>> I could go on for quite some time (no, seriously, you want 5x this much<br>
>> material? Say the word.) <br>
> <br>
> I'll be glad to read! I found out a lot of interesting stuff from this<br>
> message.<br>
<br>
</span>Sigh. I'm not significantly motivated by dislike of microsoft any more than I'm<br>
motivated by dislike of facebook, or perl. There was a time I monitored them<br>
closely as a relevant threat, but that was quite a while ago:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.fool.com/archive/portfolios/rulemaker/1998/12/21/microsoft-the-overdog-rule-maker-portfolio-decem.aspx" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.fool.com/archive/<wbr>portfolios/rulemaker/1998/12/<wbr>21/microsoft-the-overdog-rule-<wbr>maker-portfolio-decem.aspx</a><br>
<br>
Burying you in links is easy. The phrase "astroturf" was coined to describe<br>
microsoft's fake PR posing as grass-roots organization (in zdnet I think? I dug<br>
up the link<br>
<a href="http://www.zdnet.com/zdtv/siliconspin/features/story/0,3671,2103460,00.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.zdnet.com/zdtv/<wbr>siliconspin/features/story/0,<wbr>3671,2103460,00.html</a> from<br>
<a href="http://www.landley.net/writing/mirror/fool/todo/CashKingPort981118.htm" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.landley.net/<wbr>writing/mirror/fool/todo/<wbr>CashKingPort981118.htm</a> but all<br>
<a href="http://archive.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">archive.org</a> has for it is archived 404 errors), but if you google for "microsoft<br>
astroturf" today you get plenty of<br>
<a href="http://techrights.org/2009/05/27/ghettoblaster-may-be-microsoft-astroturf/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://techrights.org/2009/05/<wbr>27/ghettoblaster-may-be-<wbr>microsoft-astroturf/</a><br>
<a href="https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1143683" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.eetimes.com/<wbr>document.asp?doc_id=1143683</a><br>
<a href="https://gigaom.com/2012/04/26/the-ethics-of-astro-turfing-sleazy-or-smart-business/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://gigaom.com/2012/04/26/<wbr>the-ethics-of-astro-turfing-<wbr>sleazy-or-smart-business/</a><br>
<a href="https://www.prweek.com/article/1236875/pr-technique-astroturf---grassroots-beware-imitations-grassroots-campaigns-influence-legislators-popular-effective-public-affairs-people-known-fake-it" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.prweek.com/<wbr>article/1236875/pr-technique-<wbr>astroturf---grassroots-beware-<wbr>imitations-grassroots-<wbr>campaigns-influence-<wbr>legislators-popular-effective-<wbr>public-affairs-people-known-<wbr>fake-it</a><br>
and so on.<br>
<br>
There's even a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<wbr>Criticism_of_Microsoft</a> wikipedia<br>
page you could read if you care that much.<br>
<br>
But that's all water under the bridge. IBM used to be evil too, the DEC Field<br>
Circus" was one of the big early opposition forces against unix... they don't<br>
matter anymore.<br>
<br>
I have a general interest in computer history and often try to put it together<br>
into a larger story:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://landley.net/notes-2010.html#17-07-2010" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://landley.net/notes-<wbr>2010.html#17-07-2010</a><br>
<a href="https://landley.net/notes-2010.html#19-07-2010" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://landley.net/notes-<wbr>2010.html#19-07-2010</a><br>
<br>
But microsoft is such one-note evil it's not really very interesting. I moved on<br>
from being annoyed about them to being about the FSF about 15 years ago.<br>
<br>
I'd much rather point you at Steven Levy's book "Hackers" and then say "now read<br>
Ken Olsen's smithosonian interview for the other half of the story" (which I<br>
mirrored at <a href="http://landley.net/history/mirror/interviews/olsen.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://landley.net/history/<wbr>mirror/interviews/olsen.html</a> ), or point<br>
you at all 4 sides of the story of the invention of the 4004 (Ted Hoff the<br>
designer is <a href="http://landley.net/history/mirror/intel/Hoff.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://landley.net/history/<wbr>mirror/intel/Hoff.html</a> Federico Fagin the<br>
layout engineer who left to found Zilog is<br>
<a href="http://landley.net/history/mirror/interviews/Faggin.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://landley.net/history/<wbr>mirror/interviews/Faggin.html</a> their manager Gordon<br>
Moore is <a href="http://landley.net/history/mirror/interviews/Moore.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://landley.net/history/<wbr>mirror/interviews/Moore.html</a> and the<br>
japanese engineer who was their customer liason at busicom and who some people<br>
say was the real brains behind it is<br>
<a href="http://landley.net/history/mirror/intel/shima.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://landley.net/history/<wbr>mirror/intel/shima.html</a> )...<br>
<br>
And I need to redo my "rise and fall of copyleft" talk (link to the mp3 of the<br>
ohio linuxfest one at the start of my outline,<br>
<a href="https://landley.net/talks/ohio-2013.txt" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://landley.net/talks/<wbr>ohio-2013.txt</a> but it's a bit incoherent without the<br>
video I was showing on the screen and stops suddenly when the video cable fell<br>
out in a way that makes _no_ sense audhio-only, but again they recorded video<br>
and only ever posted audio...) but that mentions how the apple vs franklin<br>
decision of 1983 extended copyright to cover binaries and thus invented<br>
proprietary software, even though back in 1980 Bill Gates had testified before<br>
congress _demanding_ the law be changed and had failed to make any progress, as<br>
he explained to a journalist who recorded the conversation and yes I have the<br>
mp3, on <a href="https://landley.net/history/mirror" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://landley.net/history/<wbr>mirror</a> look for "1980 audio interview with<br>
bill gates"...<br>
<br>
Anyway... off topic here.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Rob<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Toybox mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Toybox@lists.landley.net">Toybox@lists.landley.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.landley.net/<wbr>listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.<wbr>net</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>