The end of Linux

>And now they (literally) own Git
This is so retarded, that it has to be bait.

Attached: 1527056827122.png (641x490, 306K)

That's why I wrote:
>Move away from GitHub

And not:
>Move away from Git

Tard.

Nice reddit spacing, chuckfuck.

So you don't see any red lights if Microsoft (which has tried to kill Linux for ages) now owns a mirror of the Linux kernel, eh?

Also there are two possibilities:

1) I might be wrong. Then you wasted a few prescious seconds to listen to some internet troll on a website full of trolls.

2) I am right. Than we might be in serious trouble if we miss the signs and get sucker punched by microsoft's next moves.

It's a read only mirror they can't make any changes if they own the github mirror for the linux kernel

>now owns a mirror of the Linux kernel, eh?
You are aware that this means literally nothing, right?

You just wait.

There will be "weird" security holes in the Kernel within the next 6 months or a FUD campaign or some other funky shit going on.
Just wait.

>they own git
You have no ideas what git is, do you?

Attached: 1499195879680.png (480x529, 106K)

Great 1990s meme, OP. In $CurrentYear, though, Windows is slowly dying to normalfags with their smartphone fetish and Microsoft knows it.

First of all it was a brilliant pun.

Also see this:

Why on earth do you think the owner of github can magically alter the sources hosted on git.kernel.org?
m$ is still hostile towards free software, but op argues for all the wrong reasons

A dying animal is the most dangerous animal.

>I have literally no idea how the linux kernel is developed

There was no pun there. Also what do you try to tell me with that link?

stop responding to this obvious retard.

>And now they (literally) own Git.
No, they literally don't, you flaming fucking retard. They own GitHub. They do NOT own git, a piece of FOSS released under the GPL2.

>and the very place where the Linux Kernel is hosted
Just yikes...

>Move away from GitHub NOW.
>You have been warned.

Yeah, let's all do that thing that everyone and their mother did days ago, if they were on GitHub in the first place. Good call.

Putting the fact that you're a blathering simpleton aside, I agree that EEE is quite obviously their goal. Whether or not they can actually do it is another matter entirely.

Attached: closed_source.jpg (2272x1704, 1.28M)

The pun was that MS "owns" git.

Also I am trying to tell you that I am right about what git is, and what git represents.

>"hurr, OP can't give a detailed strategic operation plan for the next months or all possbile attack vectors, he HAS to be wrong..."

Just think about this thread when it starts, will ya?
Thanks.

Attached: the_situation_right_now.png (437x282, 143K)

God, you're fucking retarded AND you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

lol

> And now they (literally) own Git
Github != git fgt

Which does not mean I have to be wrong, you know?

Imagine being so OBSESSED with microshit that you literally see it fucking your mum every night.

And yet you are wrong. FFS, you seemed to think that MS buying GitHub made them the owners of git. I mean, you can keep making these deliberately retarded posts trying to play it off like you were just trolling the whole time, but no one's buying it. They're just laughing at you.

>And now they (literally) own Git
What the fuck?
How can you be this retarded.

>And now they (literally) own Git.
They own github, a code hosting service.

welcome to Jow Forums
where Terry is the most sane person

Good lord, just admit that you are wrong and didn't know what you were talking about, that would be less embarrassing then what you are doing now.

Check the links in the OP, dude.
They actually do try to bring Linux down in every possible way, it's not imagination.

Yes linux is in danger, not only linux but all of the free software is in danger, MicroShit is responsible for part of the shit in are in but they'r not the only ones, the fight must be taken to them as well Fuck all this shit companies. Facebook, Intel, Nvidia, Microsoft, Apple this are the enemies of free software

I think I said all I have to say.
You faggots may laugh now, but in 6 month you won't laugh anymore.

Just hope that I'm wrong.

Attached: yohtl.jpg (605x328, 55K)

Holy hell m$ doesn't own git, git is an independent project. It represents exactly nothing, it's just a program that keeps track of changes in source code. The only thing representing something is github: how to fuck your users for money murican style

I hear ya, brah.

You are just embarrassing yourself, just admit that you are wrong and don't know what git is.

I didn't even say you are wrong, you are just dumb and have no clue what you are talking about.

they own github.com, not git

Isn't tech great? Even retards can use a computer.

>git == github
sage

Attached: 1517305836798.jpg (699x749, 116K)

> t. on the payroll of M$

I LITERALLY said that I agreed with OP's conclusion, read my post before replying.

He is retarded, stop responding to him.

>Microsoft now literally owns Git
>Git
>(((Git)))
People comparing Git to GitHub are most likely equally retarded to those who compare Java to JavaScript.

Attached: 440.jpg (720x480, 59K)

>(((git)))
Too many retards ITT.

Linux and git are both owned (or at least authored) by Linus Torvalds you baka

> t. microcuck

They own github, not git.

I like how everyone totally ignores OPs larger point about MS's behaviour and focusses intently on a minor mistake.

>OPs larger point
OP's premise is that Microsoft is slowly taking over Linux, which is just ridiculous. Linux and open source community aren't that fragile.

> They're just laughing at you.
Can confirm

>Linux and open source community aren't that fragile.
I'm sure people once said the same about IBM.

IBM isn't a community, they are a company that suffered from bad business decisions by shareholders.

Open source is nothing like that, if something fails, devs just move on to the next thing.

>git==github

>IBM isn't a community
Neither is Linux/open source/free software/whatever. The overwhelming majority of their code comes from big-time multinational corporations.

>Open source is nothing like that, if something fails, devs just move on to the next thing.
Leaving the users totally adrift and without support. "Well, I might as well go back to Windows".

How about a bunch of Debian mirrors?
wiki.debian.org/Cloud/MicrosoftAzure

>The overwhelming majority of their code comes from big-time multinational corporations.

Attached: 1517856312867.png (457x500, 59K)

>Neither is Linux/open source/free software/whatever.
Wrong

>The overwhelming majority of their code comes from big-time multinational corporations.
Just because developers are paid, doesn't mean they cannot be part of the community. The trusted maintainers of net-next for example, are all Google employees, but they're still a community.

>Leaving the users totally adrift and without support.
Open source has always been like this. You paid nothing for it, why would you expect strangers to cater you for free? If you want support, pay for it.

IBM alone make up nearly 10% of all code. Red Hat, nearly 12%. If you don't think this is an insignificant amount I have some bad news for you.

>Just because developers are paid, doesn't mean they cannot be part of the community.
They aren't. They paid workers doing what their company policy wishes them to. You're really stretching the use of "community" used in this context.

> If you want support, pay for it.
Which is why everyone uses Windows.

>Open source
gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

Attached: richard_stallman_75.jpg (1200x794, 68K)

Kinda unrelated, but i was reading that wiki page about the microsoft lawsuits. So what's the problem of bundling windows with some basic programs to run audio files or surf the web or shit like that?

It means no one will buy or even use alternatives in enough numbers to grant any real consumer choice.

>Leaving the users totally adrift and without support. "Well, I might as well go back to Windows".
It's funny that you mentioned support, since FOSS can potentially be supported forever, by either you or other competent developers that may take up an existing project whose original developer left or fork it. It is effectively immortal.
Proprietary software, on the other hand, is supported only as long as the company who made it does. Once they drop it, the software will stay unsupported, excluding highly unlikely cases of reverse engineering.
I would gladly pay for Windows 2000, the latest decent version of Windows, but M$ won't do that. So I switched to Gahnoo/Linux.

>They paid workers doing what their company policy wishes them to.
Yes, and their wish is that they continue their role as trusted maintainers.

>You're really stretching the use of "community" used in this context.
Then explain to me how Dave S. Miller has been the lead of net-next, despite him having four different employers during that time. Explain to me how Yuchun Cheng has been working for Google and for IETF without stopping contributing to Linux? Hell, explain how Torvalds himself have changed employers.

>Which is why everyone uses Windows.
They literally don't though. Oracle, IBM, Google, HP, Broadcom, Intel, NVidia, hell even Microsoft all contribute to the kernel, as you yourself pointed out.

Open source is a broader term that also encompasses free software.

>10% + 12% = 22%
>majority
Funny how you conveniently tried to move goalposts by changing "majority" to "significant amount. Also
>source: my ass

>And now they (literally) own Git.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 96K)

imagine being this stupid

Attached: 1511837291169.jpg (558x614, 21K)

Two is not all.

Even if he moved goal posts it doesn't change the fact that open source is pretty dependent on big companies these days.

>namedropping this hard
You surely convinced me.

This.
A slow takeover is still a takeover.

In a theoretical world full of rainbows and unicorns where books like "free software, free society" or "the cathedral and the bazaar" coem from, you are right.

But in reality people don't fork a major project and work their ass off just for fun. I remeber back when Linux was only "for nerds". While this was in some ways better it also meant a whole lot less users, less projects, less advancement.

Open source mitght not be as fragile as IBM, but it's probably not as strong as you think. If you reach a certain tipping point, all the normies will abadon ship which might mean less projects and overall development.

Just imagine if Linux wasn't supported anymore so you had to run your server on some Windows derivate instead of Linux? How much money could be made there?

I'm not sure how realistic this really is, but it's a scenario worth considering.

Government needs more money, literally that's it.

Lmao this is exactly the sort of dimwitted misinformed post I visit Jow Forums for, thanks for the laugh mate

>But in reality people don't fork a major project and work their ass off just for fun
And in reality, Microsoft has no influence over kernel development beyond contributing with code.

>Microsoft has no influence over kernel development beyond contributing with code.
It might shock you, but code is how software is developed.

>And now they (literally) own Git.
dumbass

And Linus and other maintainers are free to reject code that doesn't conform to the standard. Microsoft does not decide what direction the Linux kernel will take.

How about explaining how you believe Linux could be hijacked instead, you weakling?

>Microsoft does not decide what direction the Linux kernel will take.
Why else are they a Linux Foundation platinum member?

Corporations that commit code commit code that advances their goals.

>you weakling?
*snap* Yep...

>>But in reality people don't fork a major project and work their ass off just for fun.
No one said everyone forks major projects "just for fun" (although some do), I merely said that FOSS can potentially be supported and modified by anyone, especially the users. If you use FOSS, you don't have to rely on an external company to support your software for you, since you can do it yourself, or other people who can can do it for you.
This is not stuff people do "for fun", software is more often than not a tool, and not a business in itself. Software support of any kind is just part of pretty much any business nowadays.
If a company runs their internal and external services on FOSS, they don't have to rely on some other company to provide support and fixes for them: their own IT division can do it for them. You don't have to deal with bullshit forced updates and you can immediately take action if there is something wrong with the software you use.

You got it all wrong, it's google who owns git.

>Corporations that commit code commit code that advances their goals.
but they dont commit code into mainline kernel, linus and his gang does

>Why else are they a Linux Foundation platinum member?
This literally just means that they paid them a certain amount of money.

>Corporations that commit code commit code that advances their goals.
Why would advancing Microsoft's goals be the same as hijacking Linux?

This isn't a zero sum game, you stupid fuck. Microsoft isn't a "Linux competitor". They're merely a company. Linux is a kernel.

>linus and his gang

Attached: 1505411311913.jpg (241x231, 13K)

It's true though. Linus and trusted devs ultimately decides whether or not submitted patches should be accepted. If someone submits a patch that doesn't conform to what the overall goal is, then it is rejected.

>This literally just means that they paid them a certain amount of money.
Why would they do that unless its to advance their goals?

I can't believe how naive Jow Forums is about corporations. Back in the day MS couldn't even sneeze without people dog-piling them.

>Microsoft isn't a "Linux competitor".
See what I mean? Hopelessly naive.

What is this "overall goal"?

I didn't imply it was false, I just pictured Linus & co. as gangbanging niggas for a moment in my head.

>Why would they do that unless its to advance their goals?
Because it isn't a zero sum game. Microsoft uses Linux to power their Azure infrastructure, for example.

>Back in the day MS couldn't even sneeze without people dog-piling them.
I'm no fan of Microsoft, but you've still failed to explain literally HOW they would hijack the kernel.

You're just spouting a bunch of bullshit. Explain to me how Microsoft or any other company would stop Linux from being developed any more.

World domination.

>What is this "overall goal"?
A free as in freedom Unix clone kernel.

If Linux ever becomes illegal to use, then it will end. Or if the entire face of humanity is extinguished.

Since that will probably not happen within our lifetime, Linux will stay. If you're saying that Microsoft is trying to segregate Linux developers from their platform, then I'd agree, and only agree, with that.

Even if RMS or Linux Torvalds suffers the developer bus problem, GNU and Linux still have many FOSS contributors.

Microshit owns GitHub, they don't own git. Big difference. It's like saying someone owns all of Mercedes-Benz just because they bought one dealership. It doesn't work that way. Already people are leaving GitHub in droves for gitlab which is not owned by Microsoft. GitHub being owned by m$ will have absolutely no effect on the linux kernel. You've got a great future in writing garbage clickbait articles full of FUD-fodder though. Good on you. Just try posting them somewhere that they'll actually worry people that don't know any better.

Lmao how would they realistically make it "illegal" to use? I can't help but chuckle imagining the actual law.

THEY OWN GITHUB YOU FUCKING RETARD NOT GIT omg..
stopped reading there..

Yes, yes, we already know, you are really smart, know one notice

>And now they (literally) own Git
Yup. Knew you were retarded when I read the first sentence. Kindly educate and/or kill yourself.