161–170 of 664 posts
I think GitHub are doing well, but one cannot deny that GitLab has carved out a fantastic niche (on-prem, private instances, OSS, etc) that GitHub doesn't compete in. So while I agree GitHub are "the" company to beat, I think GitLab is doing a good job of contrasting. PS - No affiliation with anyone.
That only really leaves the fact that its OSS that differentiates Gitlab in your list. Not comparing the two, just making sure you're aware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> GitHub has significant vendor lock-in Do they? Unless you're on GitHub Enterprise, migrating is just moving your repos over the weekend, setting up new webhooks, emailing everyone a command to switch their upstream URL, and hoping the new workflow works for you. For teams of <100, this it one of the easier transitions to make.
How are you gonna migrate issues and actions?
[1]: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/import/github.html
[2]: https://confluence.atlassian.com/get-started-with-bitbucket/...
Great news for everyone bar startups competing with them as it looks like Microsoft is turning their multi-billion acquisition of GitHub into a loss leader to get as many devs using their platform as possible, no doubt to flex seamless integrations into Azure which looks like they're executing exceptionally well with their acquisitions & new feature giveaways. From the side-lines it looks like they're slowly becoming…
Blazor is slow to start but I think long-term will be a game changer.
Seems like every generation re-invents this idea, and every time it fails for the same fatal flaw: Illusions are just that, and you'll wind up hacking around the illusion if you want to do something not envisioned (or run into a bug in the secret sauce).
And before someone replies "it is nothing like Web Forms!!!" here's a direct quote from Blazor's homepage:
> Blazor can run your client logic on the server. Client UI events are sent back to the server using SignalR - a real-time messaging framework. Once execution completes, the required UI changes are sent to the client and merged into the DOM.
That's literally how Web Forms worked.
Hi HN, I'm the CEO of GitHub. Everyone at GitHub is really excited about this announcement, and I'm happy to answer any questions. We've wanted to make this change for the last 18 months, but needed our Enterprise business to be big enough to enable the free use of GitHub by the rest of the world. I'm happy to say that it's grown dramatically in the last year, and so we're able to make GitHub free for teams that don'…
We do have a paid plan, right now. Is there any way to continue having that paid plan on the team (paying per user for the extra features) while also adding users who don't share the extra features? We'd like to open up our org to all of our clients who use our private repos, but we don't want them to e.g. have access to all the private k8s cluster configs.
I think GitHub are doing well, but one cannot deny that GitLab has carved out a fantastic niche (on-prem, private instances, OSS, etc) that GitHub doesn't compete in. So while I agree GitHub are "the" company to beat, I think GitLab is doing a good job of contrasting. PS - No affiliation with anyone.
Sure, that's why the throwaway account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First of all, thank you, this is great news. That said, the news made me wonder what exactly I’m still paying for with my personal Pro account. I went to the pricing page https://github.com/pricing and it seems Pro isn’t even listed anymore? And the Billings page https://github.com/settings/billing says “Pages, Wikis, protected branches and more for Pro developers” without any further explanation or link to docs expl…
I still get a Pro option when going to https://github.com/account/upgrade from a free account, and it seems to match Teams, here's the blurb: > Required reviewers in private repos > Protected branches in private repos > Repository insights in private repos > Wikis in private repos > Pages in private repos > Code owners in private repos > 3,000 minutes for GitHub Actions > 2GB of storage for packages
This is pretty cool. Anyone have thoughts as to _why_ they’re making this move?
I'm sure they have enough info about onboarding and unit economics to see how it will pay off mid to long term.
I'll happily pay for use though, it makes sense and it makes the value addition of github core vs extra more clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a great change! One request: I wish that SAML was not an enterprise feature. SAML ought be a basic security feature like 2FA—it's especially valuable for open source teams who might use a mixture of services, and an easily accessible and cheap SSO solution would go a long way in raising the security bar for all teams, not just open source teams.
SAML (and 2FA to a lesser extent) comes with some serious support burdens on the companies offering it. There's a long tail of more or less broken SAML implementations on both the service and identity provider sides, provisioning issues, configuration issues, "Sally can't login on Tuesdays" issues, duplicated slightly-inconsistent data in IdP and Service side records issues... If you as a SaaS provider outsource your…
I think GitHub are doing well, but one cannot deny that GitLab has carved out a fantastic niche (on-prem, private instances, OSS, etc) that GitHub doesn't compete in. So while I agree GitHub are "the" company to beat, I think GitLab is doing a good job of contrasting. PS - No affiliation with anyone.
> "PS - No affiliation with anyone." Sure, that's why the throwaway account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SAML has been around longer and handles AuthN and AuthZ OAuth only does AuthZ. I've always found OAuth more complicated because you have to combine it with other technologies to get AuthN
OpenID Connect is the standardized AuthN process built on top of OAuth. It’s “on top of” but in practice it’s a simplification if OAuth for the specific purpose of AuttN
I've never had to clarify what someone is actually trying to accomplish when they want "SAML 2.0"