221–230 of 664 posts
So it will be free until the competition dies, and then it will be expensive? Like... everything MSFT and GOOG have ever done? Great.
When has GOOG made something expensive once the competition died? I guess for that matter... also when has MSFT? I buy they have, but not aware of any examples of the top of my head.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Content moderation at GitHub scale is hard and sometimes mistakes are made. This is completely fair, but lack of transparency makes it significantly more frustrating.
Agree strongly with this. If a repo is public and gets banned, I think it's reasonable to expect that the community can know why , regardless of the rights or wrongs of the decision.
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.
GitHub absolutely does compete for on-prem installation. Source: we use an on-prem installation at Vimeo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I might buy the conspiracy theory except for the fact that Azure DevOps exists and provides all the features of GitHub already with none of the restrictions you've mentioned except that you pay for the service.
Can it really be called a conspiracy theory when there is proof that MS has done this same sort of thing in the past? Past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior. Saying that someone has been shown to do something in the past, therefore it is likely that they will do the same thing in the future doesn't seem to qualify as a conspiracy theory.
Is it? Past behavior on the scale of decades, with leadership and org changes, market changes, culture changes in between?
I don't think that my behavior 10 or 20 years ago is a very good predictor for my behavior today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Github pages are free for public repos, aren't they? Perhaps switching to a public repo is an option.
Yes, I considered it, but that's how unfinished draft blog posts end up on HN ;). We'll probably just stop using Pages and deploy to S3 instead - it's a fairly minimal change.
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.
Github Enterprise is on-premises: https://github.com/enterprise 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.
I'd like to share feedback on GitHub Actions. Tried it out, and the learning curve was too much. I want to use stuff I already know -- e.g., write a Dockerfile, and then GH could run it on PR builds. The "workflow" concept didn't land for me, and I hope you consider a more generalized, open-source approach to running arbitrary scripts in response to PRs being opened, merges to master, etc.
Have you tried other CI/CD platforms? Different providers use different language but the workflow concept underpins all CI/CD pipelines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Continuous integration (CI) and continuous deployment (CD) services. Essentially when you merge a changeset you can configure a specific branch to automatically test, package, deploy, and integration test that branch with no additional human intervention.
AWS has that.
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'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like anyone who lived through the 90s could have expected "these kinds of results". Git is open source and widely supported, which doesn't benefit Microsoft. By causing GitHub-specific features to be an essential part of a "modern" or "industry standard" git workflow, they can capture more marketshare/attention, and cause alternatives to be sidelined. This requires removing all friction to entering the proprie…
Speaking as someone who worked at Netscape during the 90s, your comparison is missing on a lot of fronts. First, Microsoft was evil back then because they didn't just rely on excellent pricing and features (both of which they had) - but also because they leveraged their monopoly in one market (desktop operating systems) to prevent competition in adjacent markets (browsers). I think it's difficult for people to believ…
Isn't that exactly what's happening here?
Gitlab competes with Github, but doesn't have the equivalent of Azure to subsidize it with.
Azure competes with AWS and GCP, but Amazon or Google don't really have a Github competitor. (Maybe Google has a small one (?), but I've never heard of anyone using outside their cloud product.)
Bringing Github and Azure closer together is an obvious move.
Github might not be a monopoly in the legal sense, but it's a solid #1 in the space, with strong network effects. On the other hand, Azure is far behind the near-monopoly AWS.