Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On 06/08/2018 06:02 PM, Brad Roberts wrote: Essentially (if not actually) everything on github is available through their api's. No need for scraping or other heroics to gather it. That does make things a little bit simpler, but web scraping really isn't all that much more complicated. Whether web API or web scraping: Either way, you still have to submit an HTTP request, parse the results according to the format the server has chosen to spit out, and possibly follow up with additional HTTP requests. The main differences are just: Web scraping can occasionally get thwarted by changes in the webapp's presentation layer. Whereas web API can occasionally get thwarted by business rules changing what is/isn't accessible via API (this has been known to happen). Ie, scraping needs to deal with UI changes, but unlike API, it cannot be selectively hindered/disabled (unless the primary website itself is hindered/disabled, too). Thus, a robust tool will support both published web API and web scraping, and select the answers from whichever one works.
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 07:06:23 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote: Whether web API or web scraping: Either way, you still have to submit an HTTP request, parse the results according to the format the server has chosen to spit out, and possibly follow up with additional HTTP requests. https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/import/github.html done?
Re: SecureD moving to GitLab
On 06/09/2018 01:47 AM, Walter Bright wrote: Oh, employers do try that. I would negotiate what is mine and what is the company's, before signing. In particular, I'd disclose all projects I'd worked on before, and get a specific acknowledgement that those were not the company's. When I'd moonlight, before I'd do so, I'd describe the project on a piece of paper and get acknowledgement from the company that it is not their project. And I never had any trouble about it. (These days, life is a bit simpler. One thing I like about Github is the software is all date stamped, so I could, for instance, prove I wrote it before joining company X.) Maybe naive, maybe not, but my policy is that: Any hour of any day an employer claims ***ANY*** influence over, must be paid for ($$$) by said employer when attempting to make ANY claim on that hour of my life. Period. There are already far too many would-be-slavedrivers^H^H^H^H^H^H^employers who attempt to stake claim to the hours of a human being's life WHICH THEY DO *NOT* COMPENSATE FOR. If an employer *does not* pay me for an hour of my life which they *claim control over*, then the employer WILL NOT BE MY EMPLOYER. Period. If others held themselves to the same basic standards, then nobody in the world would ever be slave^H^H^H^H^Hpersonal-property to a business which makes claim to a human life without accepted compensation.
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On 06/09/2018 03:56 AM, Kagamin wrote: On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 07:06:23 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote: Whether web API or web scraping: Either way, you still have to submit an HTTP request, parse the results according to the format the server has chosen to spit out, and possibly follow up with additional HTTP requests. https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/import/github.html done? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAuPb16jRjY
Re: SecureD moving to GitLab
On Saturday, June 09, 2018 04:03:40 Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: > On 06/09/2018 01:47 AM, Walter Bright wrote: > > Oh, employers do try that. I would negotiate what is mine and what is > > the company's, before signing. In particular, I'd disclose all projects > > I'd worked on before, and get a specific acknowledgement that those were > > not the company's. When I'd moonlight, before I'd do so, I'd describe > > the project on a piece of paper and get acknowledgement from the company > > that it is not their project. > > > > And I never had any trouble about it. > > > > (These days, life is a bit simpler. One thing I like about Github is the > > software is all date stamped, so I could, for instance, prove I wrote it > > before joining company X.) > > Maybe naive, maybe not, but my policy is that: Any hour of any day an > employer claims ***ANY*** influence over, must be paid for ($$$) by said > employer when attempting to make ANY claim on that hour of my life. > Period. > > There are already far too many > would-be-slavedrivers^H^H^H^H^H^H^employers who attempt to stake claim > to the hours of a human being's life WHICH THEY DO *NOT* COMPENSATE FOR. > > If an employer *does not* pay me for an hour of my life which they > *claim control over*, then the employer WILL NOT BE MY EMPLOYER. Period. > > If others held themselves to the same basic standards, then nobody in > the world would ever be slave^H^H^H^H^Hpersonal-property to a business > which makes claim to a human life without accepted compensation. Well, the actual, legal situation doesn't always match what it arguably should be, and anyone working on salary doesn't technically get paid for any specific hours. So, that sort of argument doesn't necessarily fly. Also, there _is_ potentially a legitimate concern on the part of the employer. If you use your free time to write the same sort of stuff that you write for work, you're potentially using their IP. In particular, they really don't want you going home and writing a competing product using all of the knowledge you got working for them. And legally, attempting to do anything like that (in the US at least) will almost certainly get you in legal trouble if your employer finds out. The real problem is when employers try to claim anything unrelated to your job that you do in your free time. _That_ is completely inappropriate, but some employers try anyway, and depending on which state you live in and what you signed for the company, they may or may not be able to come after you even if it's ridiculous for them to be able to. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Beta 2.080.1
On Fri, 2018-06-08 at 16:28 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: […] > > If not 2.080.2, I will target master for 2.081. Seems like it was pretty > much good to go, but didn't make the cutoff. I'll just go do some more Rust stuff whilst waiting. :-) -- Russel. === Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On Fri, 2018-06-08 at 15:06 -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On 6/8/2018 3:02 PM, Brad Roberts wrote: > > Essentially (if not actually) everything on github is available through > > their > > api's. No need for scraping or other heroics to gather it. > > That's good to know! The situation I was concerned with is it going dark all > of > a sudden. […] Good job Microsoft bought GitHub then: GitHub was likely running out of cash, so needed a quick sale to avoid it going dark very suddenly. -- Russel. === Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: SecureD moving to GitLab
On 6/9/2018 1:03 AM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote: Maybe naive, maybe not, but my policy is that: Any hour of any day an employer claims ***ANY*** influence over, must be paid for ($$$) by said employer when attempting to make ANY claim on that hour of my life. Period. If that's the deal you want, then negotiate for it.
Re: SecureD moving to GitLab
On 09/06/2018 9:57 PM, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/9/2018 1:03 AM, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote: Maybe naive, maybe not, but my policy is that: Any hour of any day an employer claims ***ANY*** influence over, must be paid for ($$$) by said employer when attempting to make ANY claim on that hour of my life. Period. If that's the deal you want, then negotiate for it. It's called the law in New Zealand :)
Re: SecureD moving to GitLab
On Fri, 2018-06-08 at 22:47 -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > […] > Oh, employers do try that. I would negotiate what is mine and what is the > company's, before signing. In particular, I'd disclose all projects I'd > worked > on before, and get a specific acknowledgement that those were not the > company's. > When I'd moonlight, before I'd do so, I'd describe the project on a piece > of > paper and get acknowledgement from the company that it is not their project. Not only should employers try that, they must do that or fail in their responsibilities to the shareholders. But that is the point, all the employer needs to know is that any software you do outside the company does not compete with or "steal" stuff from inside the company. Openness and straightforwardness is all that is required so all parties know what is going on. > And I never had any trouble about it. Any potential employer not behaving reasonably, is an employer not to work for. > (These days, life is a bit simpler. One thing I like about Github is the > software is all date stamped, so I could, for instance, prove I wrote it > before > joining company X.) And of course, non-GPL and LGPL software on GItHub, GitLab, BitBucket, Launchpad, are there fore the taking: why pay people when you can use their work free of charge. ;-) -- Russel. === Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: SecureD moving to GitLab
On Sat, 2018-06-09 at 04:03 -0400, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via Digitalmars- d-announce wrote: > […] > Maybe naive, maybe not, but my policy is that: Any hour of any day an > employer claims ***ANY*** influence over, must be paid for ($$$) by said > employer when attempting to make ANY claim on that hour of my life. Period. Employees involved in intellectual endeavour need to be beholden to the employer at all times since the employee might have ideas useful to the employer at any time. This is a complicated issue and extreme positions are not helpful. But everyone to their own. > There are already far too many > would-be-slavedrivers^H^H^H^H^H^H^employers who attempt to stake claim > to the hours of a human being's life WHICH THEY DO *NOT* COMPENSATE FOR. This is why permissive software licences were invented, so people would do lots of work on FOSS and then companies could use it for their own money making purposes without any thought of paying anyone anything. > If an employer *does not* pay me for an hour of my life which they > *claim control over*, then the employer WILL NOT BE MY EMPLOYER. Period. Salaries are like that, employers own you 24/7. > If others held themselves to the same basic standards, then nobody in > the world would ever be slave^H^H^H^H^Hpersonal-property to a business > which makes claim to a human life without accepted compensation. It's all about supply and demand in this currently capitalist world. You can bet there will be someone who will do it even if you won't. How else do the "sweat shops" work. Openness, compromise, accommodation, and collaboration work best in what is a fundamentally combative, us vs them economic system. -- Russel. === Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: SecureD moving to GitLab
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 08:35:25 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: The real problem is when employers try to claim anything unrelated to your job that you do in your free time. _That_ is completely inappropriate, but some employers try anyway, and depending on which state you live in and what you signed for the company, they may or may not be able to come after you even if it's ridiculous for them to be able to. Joel Spolsky wrote about this a couple years ago: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2016/12/09/developers-side-projects/
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 07:53:13 UTC, drug wrote: 04.06.2018 09:02, Anton Fediushin пишет: On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 04:40:44 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On the bright side, maybe this will encourage online repo hosting to become less of a monopoly as folks move elsewhere due to their concerns about Microsoft. - Jonathan M Davis Can't agree more: GitLab and Bitbucket deserve more attention. Speaking of which, there's huge spike [1] in project imports on GitLab. These are some great news for it, I hope it doesn't crash. [1] https://monitor.gitlab.net/dashboard/db/github-importer?orgId=1 Gitlab has a big (for me) advantage being self hosted standalone system I can use privately. Its free version has restrictions comparing to enterprise version but very usable. What about sexy modern design it's annoying (for me again) that this design changes frequently, it forces me almost every update to find where menus and buttons I used before placed now. No more restrictions for using GitLab for open source projects [1], both SaaS and Self-Hosted. It's really a big opportunity... [1] https://about.gitlab.com/2018/06/05/gitlab-ultimate-and-gold-free-for-education-and-open-source/ /Paolo
Diamond (Full-stack MVC web-framework) - v2.10.0 (GDPR Patch)
Happy to announce version 2.10.0 of Diamond. This release is primarily a GDPR Security Patch with respect for privacy during logging, sensitive data detection/validation etc. Of course as with everything else in Diamond it can be tweaked as much as you want, or disabled. Since last announced release the following features has also been added: * More helper functions for various things. * Secure file-access * More caching * Static views (Can be statically cached over time periods etc.) * New metadatas for views * GDPR Helper Functionality * More standard imports for views * Ability to handle "no-actions" for controllers (Useful for certain REST designs.) * Database relationships * Data-proxy for data-management with the ORM * Host white-list Thank you! Github: https://github.com/DiamondMVC/Diamond/ DUB: https://code.dlang.org/packages/diamond Website: http://diamondmvc.org/ (Powered by Diamond!)
dlangbot for Telegram - D compiler in your pocket
Hello, I am glad to announce that new Telegram bot which can execute D code is up and running! Check it out here: https://t.me/dlangbot Features: - Two compilers to choose from: dmd (default) and ldc - Support for custom compiler arguments with `/args` command - It's possible to set program's stdin with `/stdin` - Code is automatically compiled and ran again when you edit your message Repository: https://gitlab.com/ohboi/dlangbot Any ideas on how to improve it are appreciated!
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On 06/09/2018 11:06 AM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote: [1] https://about.gitlab.com/2018/06/05/gitlab-ultimate-and-gold-free-for-education-and-open-source/ From the link: "It has been a crazy 24 hours for GitLab. More than 2,000 people tweeted about #movingtogitlab. We imported over 100,000 repositories, and we've seen a 7x increase in orders. We went live on Bloomberg TV. And on top of that, Apple announced an Xcode integration with GitLab." I find it honestly hilarious that MS buying GitHub has been a huge boost to GitLab. But then, I do love irony :) (I just hope it doesn't lead to GitLab running out of cash too.)
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 23:41:43 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote: (I just hope it doesn't lead to GitLab running out of cash too.) And then Microsoft acquires both and everyone moves to Bitbucket. Endless cycle :)
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On 06/09/2018 08:29 PM, bauss wrote: On Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 23:41:43 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote: (I just hope it doesn't lead to GitLab running out of cash too.) And then Microsoft acquires both and everyone moves to Bitbucket. Endless cycle :) Ahhh! Time to make my own then! Wouldn't mind getting $7mil from MS :)
Re: GitHub could be acquired by Microsoft
On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 20:00:45 UTC, Maksim Fomin wrote: On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 19:26:23 UTC, Joakim wrote: On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 19:06:52 UTC, Maksim Fomin wrote: Unlikely, you don't spend $7.5 billion on a company because you want to send a message that you're a good dev tools company, then neglect it. You have no idea about how big corporations' management spends money. As with Nokia and Skype - I don't know whether it was initially a plan to destroy products or management was just silly. I suggest you look at their online slides linked from the Nadella blog post to see their stated plan, such as integrating github into VS Code more: http://aka.ms/ms06042018 and likely vastly overpaid for an unprofitable company in the first place :) this is exactly how such deals are done - paying $7.5 bl. for nonprofitable company. Unfortunately, their books are unavailable because they are private company, but scarce information in the web suggests that in most of their years they have losses. Just as rough estimate: to support $7.5 bl valuation Microsoft must turn -$30 ml. net loss company into business generating around $750 ml. for many years. There is no way to get these money from the market. Alternatively, the project can have payoff if something is broken and Microsoft cash flows increase by $750 ml. This is more likely... but they emphasize that they intend to keep github open and independent. They can claim anything which suits best their interests right now. Or, as alternative, github can be broken in a such way, that their promises on surface are kept. Business is badly compatible with opensource by design. I just finished reading this interesting article by a former Microsoft business guy, which makes the same point I did, that MS is unlikely to neglect github or otherwise force it in some direction to leverage it: https://stratechery.com/2018/the-cost-of-developers/ You're right that MS has had many acquisitions go badly already, such as Nokia and Skype (though I'd argue both were long-term doomed before they were bought), but, as always, incompetence is the much more likely reason than malice.
