How do they make money? or whats the safe alternative besides just git?

how do they make money? or whats the safe alternative besides just git?

Other urls found in this thread:

visualstudio.com/team-services/
developer.github.com/v3/repos/statistics/
chiselapp.com/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Linux#Criticism_by_Microsoft
ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>how do they make money?
Private repos and that sweet jew gold they get for providing a data mining API

>whats the safe alternative besides just git?
BitBucket is nice because unlimited private repos, but I get cancer everytime I try to use their web UI

>how do they make money?

paid private repos

>or whats the safe alternative besides just git?

use gogs or gitlab locally or any of the competing public services (bitbucket, gitlab, others).

why would you pay github to host repo

You'd pay them to host it privately, so you don't have to deal with private servers yourself.

>whats the safe alternative besides just git?
Visual Studio Team Services

visualstudio.com/team-services/

>data mining api
?

>unironically shilling for team foundation server

Fucking kek

developer.github.com/v3/repos/statistics/

Git is a developer tool.
It is for developers.
Some developers earn their money unethically by making proprietary software.
They want to keep their repositories private, but still want the benefits of using something like github.
This means they can easily share repositories with customers and stuff like that.
It makes sense.

This is unironically a great fucking thing.

Haven't looked back since I started using it. Free, unlimited private repos with kanbans and VS integration.

When sjwhub starts offering unlimited private repos, then we talk ok?

>proprietary software is unethical

>unlimited private repos
It's called BitBucket, faggot.

By the way, you can technically use this for cloud storage.

There's no storage cap, so you can technically "system-version" 3TB of loli and they won't do anything about it.

You know, just in case you need to see your collection change over time.

i dont understand how this could be useful for data mining or how they profit from tbis

Use Chisel to host Fossil repositories:

chiselapp.com/

>unlimited private repos with kanbans
what is bitbucket.org

Employers monitor their employees with it.

This. Not to mention BitBucket supports Mercurial, which is infinitely superior to Git.

But it is; you're removing the control of the user over his own machine. That's why Android devices have such poor support lifetimes

ah so if i was to host a repository it wouldn't be unethical, only if i worked for a company

I've used bitbucket.

It's fine, but VSTS has better VS integration (go figure) which allows you to relate your code pushes to specific user stories or work items.

Plus, I actually like using TFVC more than git for personal projects anyway.

>ah so if i was to host a repository it wouldn't be unethical, only if i worked for a company
uh what? I didn't say anything about ethical / unethical....

androis is open source

Haha no, don't be delusional. No one's removing anybody's control, because nobody is forcing anyone to use their proprietary software. You're talking about ethics but you're completely illiterate on the subject.

>It's fine, but VSTS has better VS integration (go figure) which allows you to relate your code pushes to specific user stories or work items.
Just install Atlassians Visual Studio plugin and you have the fucking same functionality and now you're not bound to proprietary Indian poo in loo dog shit.

>Plus, I actually like using TFVC more than git for personal projects anyway.
Okay, now I know you're either trolling or actually legitimately retarded.

Proprietary Google services that run on most Android installations aren't, though. Do you run a non-Google Android?

But Atlassian is Australian user, and Microsoft is American and I am American, and I need to support my country's business.

Both bitbucket and Jira have issue name text matching in commit messages, related fork and branch detection, and merge support tools.

But it's drivers and UI integrations are not. Those are locked down like crazy.

>forcing
Have you never experienced vendor lock-in? That's what Photoshop and MS office do.

>Indian poo in loo dog shit
Pretty sure this is still a great meme over on the reddit, mate.

I'm not sure why you care so much.

I'm currently using a tool that fits my needs. It fits my needs better than bitbucket out of the box, and I currently have many projects integrated into it.

If you somehow manage to "convert" me to your way of thinking, does this give you a rush of endorphins or something? What do you get out of this?

Bakberry phones carry QNX OS with android player.
Non-Google Android ecosystem which allows to compile and install own compiled applications.
No google applications and services at all.

For browser on it I opted to compile and install Fennec.

He gets the pleasure of one less incorrect, vitriol spewing retard shitting up threads he frequents in the future. Same as the rest of us, faggot.

>recommending proprietary bitbucket

"Vendor lock-in" doesn't exist. You can always switch. The cost to switch might be high, but that only means it's probably best to stick to your current choice because it's already the best.

>I'm currently using a tool that fits my needs. It fits my needs better than bitbucket out of the box, and I currently have many projects integrated into it.
Hahaha, enjoy being owned by Microsoft.

>If you somehow manage to "convert" me to your way of thinking, does this give you a rush of endorphins or something? What do you get out of this?
I'm just telling you that your opinions are shit and you should seriously consider suicide.

i still use clearcase

>The cost to switch might be high, but that only means it's probably best to stick to your current choice.
That's literally vendor lock-in you flaming mongoloid.

they make money via upselling. organizations and individuals pay a bit for private repositories.

i don't understand what your second question is asking. git is just a way to track changes. the notion of it being safe or unsafe is like asking if the color purple has rougher texture than brown. the safest thing you can do with your code is maintain well-documented diffs with backups in other locations. github generally satisfies that. there are other ways to satisfy it, but github does it too

like the others said, to avoid having to deal with maintaining this shit yourself. and so that if you want to go public with your code you just flip a switch and that's it. the whole social aspect of coding is compelling to a lot of people (namely, github users)

So intentional sabotaging of compatibility doesn't happen?
Intentional convoluted UI design choices and patenting of those choices doesn't happen?
Cheap or free licenses to eduction as a user lock-in technique doesn't happen either?

See

>You can always switch. The cost to switch might be high
lol what do you think vendor lock-in is?

>Mercurial, which is infinitely superior to Git

what about rhodecode?

Git is only appropriate for open source many forks systems. Like what you find on github.
Subversion is better in most other aspects.

Overall I can't say I'm happy with any source control. They all do basic pushes fine but beyond that there's issues.

>it's the best because switching is too expensive

>i'm too invested in it to change now even if you convince me of other alternatives

Behold the Microsoft cuck.

You're not locked if you can still switch. You faggots just contradicted yourselves.

>sabotaging
That's a strong word, no one is obligated to be compatible with competitors.

>patenting
Patents are a legal protection to innovation, user.

>cheap or free licenses to education
Are you unironically arguing against these? Do you seriously consider giving licenses away to be evil? Damn, the mental gymnastics!

>pull command
>probably retrieves new code from repo.
>nope, retrieves code, merges local branch onto it, and updates to latest changeset
Git is retarded but powerful
Mercurial is sane and just as powerful

>it's not the best, even though it's cheaper
Price is also a factor in the industry, user.

man git-pull
man git-fetch

>You're not locked if you can still switch. You faggots just contradicted yourselves.
You literally said it's too expensive to switch.

See >no one is obligated to be compatible with competitors.
Unironically defending incompatibility

>Patents are a legal protection to innovation, user.
Unironically defending software patents

>Are you unironically arguing against these? Do you seriously consider giving licenses away to be evil? Damn, the mental gymnastics!
Unironically defending unethical and non-free licenses

>as long as we document everything in the manual, it's okay to make a retarded and counter-intuitive interface

all i did was ask you a question: what do you think vendor lock-in is? maybe more importantly, who taught you the definition and why did they not want you to succeed in life?

can you point to any external source that defines vendor lock-in *without* a clause about high costs of switching? because a quick search shows a handful of definitions of "Vendor lock-in" with that rider clearly attached

>it's cheaper than something that is literally free
So you are retarded. The next thing you're going to say is that "you obviously get what you pay for"

>You're not locked if you can still switch. You faggots just contradicted yourselves.
By the same logic, you never "lock" your front door, as anybody can drive a car into it and ram it in
>no one is obligated to be compatible with competitors.
It helps a mighty lot to be able to acquire your competitors' clients. If they flock to them instead, it's because your product is worse and you're harming them by keeping them tied to yours.

>sabotaging
How about to govt, ISO, or previous version standards?

>patenting
Proof?

>licenses
When used as part of a vendor lock-in campaign, yes.

Stop posting, your opinions are shit and not even the biggest Oracle DBA cucks agree with you.

I don't know what to tell you, man.

I've tried both, and preferred one of the options, and it has distinct differences that fit my use-case better.

>wrong
>cuck
>owned
>suicide
>shit

so whats the best github for mercurial

>it's not my fault my compiler formatted your harddrive. Its a well established feature in the manual

Nigga, it's mentioned in each and every tutorial worth reading. You have just proven yourself to be shitposting without actually knowing what the everloving fuck you're talking about.

not sure what you two are arguing about but when bitching about costs it seems like people on Sup Forums forget that operational costs factor in too. if you take something as simple as a word processor and make it more frustrating and clumsy to use and deploy it to a medium or large size company, it'll affect productivity in a measurable way. it might help a bit that the software was $0, but it's not as simple as slashing that budget any more than swapping a car out for a bike commute isn't without its trade-offs.

You're no better than the people expecting Linux to be basically a Windows and then bitch about it on Sup Forums afterwards.

Pull is a fetch + merge
Always use fetch

>Android/ios/whatever as a platform is not literal slavery
Oh good.
Not sure how that's particularly relevant.

>github is sjw
>gitlab is shit
what's the good service ?

Roll your own gitlab server

Linux is a terrible operating system though. It's just that your standards are extremely low because there's no good alternatives.

Bitbucket. Only feature degradation is search by keyword, but Google does that for you

>not sure what you two are arguing about but when bitching about costs it seems like people on Sup Forums forget that operational costs factor in too
BitBucket and GitHub are free of charge you flaming imbecile.

>and deploy it to a medium or large size company, it'll affect productivity in a measurable way
Name one medium to large sized software company except Microsoft that doesn't use git

I wonder why it fucking dominates every market except Word and gaymen

>You literally said it's too expensive to switch.
Yes. Instead of whining that the competition is "locking" your customers in, lower down your prices, faggot. Innovate and compete instead of blaming your competitors for your shortcomings.

>defending incompatibility
I'm not defending incompatibility. But no one is obligated to be compatible, user. Breaking compatibility can be a good thing if legacy compatibility is impeding you from going forward.

>software patents are bad, mmmmkay?
Right.

>unethical
There's that word again.

>non-free licenses
You're defending a utopia. In the real world, corporations have to protect their code. When you grow out of adolescence, you'll hear about industry secrets.

I think vendor lock-in doesn't exist.

Licensing costs aren't the only costs. "Free" software isn't really free. Look up TCO.

>anybody can drive a car into it and ram it in
They can, but they may not, because that's illegal. Switching is never illegal. No one's stopping you from spending the money if you really think it's worth it. And that's the point: they don't because it's not worth it, therefore there's no "lock-in".

>it's because your product is worse and you're harming them by keeping them tied to yours
So why aren't people flocking to "free" software then?

not him, but you're being hyperbolic. i wouldn't use linux as my desktop/laptop operating system, but it's certainly what i hope to find on the other side whenever i ssh into a machine. if i remote into a machine and it's running os x i know i can probably make shit work with some kludging, and if it's windows i'm just fucked, but with linux it's not that chaotic

He's not wrong, Linux is shit. I say this as a full time user and evangelist of Linux.

It just has no good alternatives

i was just tossing into the discussion the discrete point that with any system the cost isn't limited to the licensing fee. you don't have to have a retarded tantrum about it

>illegal
That's not really the point. The popo can ram your arse in with a warrant. The point is your door isn't "locked" by your own argument.

>Yes. Instead of whining that the competition is "locking" your customers in, lower down your prices, faggot. Innovate and compete instead of blaming your competitors for your shortcomings.
That's not what you said, you said the cost of switching is too high. The alternative is literally free of charge, user.


>"Free" software isn't really free. Look up TCO.
Seriously?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Linux#Criticism_by_Microsoft

ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf

Hosting private repos for entrepreneurs, some students, and small businesses, and offering a means for big companies and government to data mine the users to see if there's anyone out there worth recruiting in certain fields based on project count and quality or if there's any ideas worth taking and expanding on or repurposing.
Also when companies like Google want to do a public good and release their code, but I would think Github wouldn't charge for that.

>i was just tossing into the discussion the discrete point that with any system the cost isn't limited to the licensing fee.
THEY HOST EVERYTHING FOR YOU, THEY COST IS LITERALLY $0 GO KILL YOURSELF RETARD

>I think vendor lock-in doesn't exist.
i don't even understand what you're saying. people have defined the term to mean "impossible to switch without substantial switching costs". instances of that are out there.

are you telling me that, in response to my question of "What do you think vendor lock-in is?", your answer is "something that doesn't exist"?

i'm asking for something incredibly simple. you need to buckle down and focus. what string of words defines "vendor lock in" to you, and where did you get that string of words from?

>You're defending a utopia. In the real world, corporations have to protect their code. When you grow out of adolescence, you'll hear about industry secrets.
And funny how you can still use git.

TFS is the only option.

Because its the best we've got.
Nobody sane would call C the best shit ever despite being the market leader for a good 20 years at least.
Yes using a very small subset of an OS can make it appear OK.
But I assure you that if that's all you're doing almost any OS with the software you need is fine for you.
Linux is rotten to the core. In Windows and Macos the core is probably just as rotten but it's hidden.
Someone needs to make a new OS. People are wasting their time with Linux distros.

You mean as in TFS with Git instead of the abominable horror that is TFVC, right?

They may only have a warrant if you give them probable cause. Stop with the mental gymnastics and answer this: can you or can you not always switch?

>The alternative is literally free of charge, user.
Licensing-wise, it is, but it's TCO is much higher.

>Seriously?
So you're saying it isn't? Then the cost of switching isn't high? Therefore, there is no vendor lock-in?

See, anyway I am right: vendor lock-in isn't a real thing.

>i don't even understand what you're saying
Re-read the thread then. "Lock-in" is a misleading term: you're never locked.

this was exactly the point i was making. the services github, gitlab, bitbucket, etc... offer have different features, different quirks in the web interface, different reliability profiles. if you're telling me that you're reducing the evaluation of these options to the fees paid, then fine, but the point i came in with was that costs are farther-reaching than that.

and you're not handling that with any more grace than before but i guess at this point i should just be hopeful you're not out shooting up a nearby school right now

A ton of faggots are shilling for a lot of different alternative commercial services here and you don't seem to be bothered, user.

Why do you have an axe to grind against Microsoft?

>can you or can you not always switch?
Scenarios exist where the operational cost of switching, in manhours and downtime, is unbearable

TCO is part of vendor lock-in.
When it is marginally cheaper to maintain status quo than it is to temporarily invest in a switch and reduce future cost or better performance/capability, managers and c-level will almost never go for it.

That is vendor lock-in.

When grandma buys Linus a copy of Word because that's the program she heard of and it won't run on his strange computer, that's vendor lock-in.

The oil&gas industry is rife with this shit, with competing SCADA packages being completely and totally incompatible, causing rebuilds of management routines for millions of dollars every few years for unchanging hardware, simply because a field changed ownership.

Your opinions are shit, stop posting

>Re-read the thread then. "Lock-in" is a misleading term: you're never locked.
jesus you're a fucking retard. you evaluate the term's definition, not the constituent words. are you learning english for the first time right now or something?

do you bitch about how some words use greek and latin roots that aren't quite right? does that shit bother you too?

usage is the arbiter of language. maybe the etymology is inconsistent with the current meaning, but fortunately language doesn't accommodate autistic people.

>these things only cost money because it's not exactly like TFS
Not an argument. I would have to change my workflow considerably if I weren't allowed to use git. In fact, if a workplace is not using git that's a huge red flag in my book.

>So you're saying it isn't? Then the cost of switching isn't high? Therefore, there is no vendor lock-in?
I'm saying the "hurr durr TCO of free software is a lot higher" is a bullshit argument, and you should read those links before spouting 20 year old memes.

>whats the safe alternative besides just git?
self hosting git+ ssh + cgit + gpg sign your commits.

>mental gymnastics
Have you just admitted to being mentally feeble?

Here's a tip: the commercial services all support git

Even TFS supports Git :^)

>"Vendor lock-in" doesn't exist. You can always switch. The cost to switch might be high, but that only means it's probably best to stick to your current choice
wait, what??

That's LITERALLY what lock-in is user. Deliberately making it too expensive to switch to a competing service.

>pull command
>makes everything up-to-date

Why the fuck would I want anything else? People with elaborate branching structures don't know how to live.

Then why would you pay to use something others provide for free?

Then lower your costs instead of blaming your competitor.

What you're defending is literal linguistic deconstructionalism. I'm not arguing language with you.

>TCO of free software is a lot higher is a bullshit argument
Then there's no vendor lock-in.

The competing service could lower those costs if they wanted. That's merely a bullshit excuse for performing poorly in the market.

>how do they make money?
They don't :^)
>whats the safe alternative besides just git?
Nothing. Don't fall for the shilled garbage.

I'm not that guy. I'm making fun of the TFS shill.

Underrated post

Exactly. That's why I use Microsoft VSTS instead of GitHub: so I get unlimited private git repos for free.

we've since discovered that he made up his own definition of vendor lock-in that's not corroborated by any external source that he's willing to share, and by his special definition it doesn't exist.

sometimes you wonder if this site wouldn't be such shit with more aggressive mods

>use git "300GB into the trash" lab
>use git "5 backup methods, 0 setup" lab
>use git "didn't check the bucket" lab
>use git "delete prod at midnight" lab
>use git "6 feet under" lab