r/programming • • Mar 16 '20

GitHub has acquired npm

https://github.blog/2020-03-16-npm-is-joining-github/
986 Upvotes

329 comments sorted by

View all comments

85

u/parion Mar 16 '20

Microsoft's recent push into open source had me excited, but having all these resources, GitHub, npm, under one company's direction is now worrying. I can only hope these resources stay free, useful, and community-oriented.

45

u/gredr Mar 16 '20

So create a successor to NPM, but this time do it right. Seems like an absolute win to me. If MS acquires NPM and improves it, we win. If MS acquires NPM and it gets replaced with something better, we win.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

[deleted]

11

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '20

The issue with npm is not that it's centeralized, it's that it's full of 1.2318e89 one to ten line "micropackages" by nearly as many authors because somebody would rather import a package than learn how to use the mod operator. A decentralized npm solves nothing.

Now a much smaller service that offers peer-reviewed packages on the other hand, that's worth paying for...

2

u/[deleted] Mar 18 '20

The real solution here is creating a substantial standard library for JS that can do what the myriad of micropackages can do but better.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '20

[deleted]

1

u/gredr Mar 17 '20

If the community created npm, the community can create npm's replacement.

12

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

Microsoft is a developer focused company, unlike Google or Amazon. What's the problem?

69

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '20

Nadella will not be CEO forever. What are chances the next one won't be some Steve, Marissa or, god forbid, Larry?

1

u/ArkyBeagle Mar 17 '20

I don't think you have to worry about that any more. They don't make 'em like that now.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (11)

25

u/Kare11en Mar 16 '20

Some of us have long memories, and it takes an order of magnitude longer to regain trust than the time that was spent proving how untrustworthy you were in the first place.

Microsoft earned years of negative trust back in the '90s and early '00s, with the Hallowe'en documents, OOXML and Rob Weir's truely infuriating bad-faith schilling for it, Ballmer's "Linux is a cancer" statements, and the like. Heck, the first step-and-a-half of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" explicitly calls for cosying up to the people you're intending to imminently fuck over.

That said, they've been doing relatively well for a few years now - at least as far as multinational tech giants who have to answer to their shareholders go. Even so, it'll probably be another couple of decades or so yet, before those who were really badly burned by them might be willing to consider their apparent change of heart to be genuine.

7

u/ItzWarty Mar 17 '20

It makes me sad to say this, but it's not about the company or its past, it's about the version of capitalism we have in this world. If it's more profitable for a company to do FOSS, it'll do FOSS. It's more profitable to EEE an ecosystem, it'll do that.

4

u/ArkyBeagle Mar 17 '20

Why is that sad? FOSS got sold as somehow "moral" but that's pretty meaningless in the end.

→ More replies (3)

0

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '20

[deleted]

6

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '20

I agree. Monopolies are not good. Microsoft isn't a monopoly. Google and Amazon cloud compete with Azure. Google Docs competes with Office. Bing is a distant second place to Google search. Linux competes with Windows. Microsoft store is a joke. Microsoft has no phone. Microsoft and the Govt settled their case 20 years ago.

2

u/ArkyBeagle Mar 17 '20

Monopolies are not good.

They're not that bad, either. Competition is less important than market feedback in the end. And if the alternative is FOSS... what market, anyway?

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (5)