Live data from Hacker News

GitHub is now free for teams

github.blog

241–250 of 664 posts

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#241

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.

It seems reasonable to expect this, but it can fall down in practice for several reasons:

* Sometimes legal counsel provide advice that there should be no further response to the individual or organization. Often technical people don't understand this situation, but it doesn't change the merits of the legal advice. In smaller organizations a leader might take a chance in further engagement, if they think it's helpful, but it's unlikely a large organization would expose themselves to this risk.

* Breakdown in internal response processes. You'll find that many people are really uncomfortable in these situations (e.g. compliance team shut down service, but don't "own" the response.) Unless the legal team has written a response and instructions on how to deliver it, you will often see people in organizations avoid giving the response. Things get passed down as low as they can go which doesn't help because there is less experience with handling tough situations. Very often some poor person with support ends up having to give the response and they basically ignore it because they can avoid the situation. This isn't very professional of the organization, but it's a reality.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#242
post #35

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.

I'd never heard of SAML before. Is it like a more complicated version of OAuth?

SAML is pretty simple, it just uses XML which I think turns people off to it by default. I've implemented it once and I feel like I have a decent handle on what it is (though maybe I've just avoided the worst edge cases).

OAuth is way more complex, I've used it countless times and still get confused by it. It has more complex patterns like having a separate resource server and authentication server, it's used for more purposes, e.g. sometimes for API access and sometimes for login and sometimes a confusing mix of both, and there are big differences between v1 and v2 and some services are still using v1.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blazor is slow to start but I think long-term will be a game changer.

You mean Microsoft's latest attempt at Web Forms/Silverlight, a product that yet again tries to muddy the separation between client and server execution contexts using magic. 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 secre…

This is a really cynical take.

I'm also not sure why you are conflating Silverlight with Web Forms - it was never competing with Web Forms, it was client-side only, a replacement to Flash - a better UI and API (at the time) than HTML/CSS/JS.

Blazor is OSS, and doesn't work like Web Forms.

As in your own quote, Blazor uses SignalR - which uses push-based comms, such as Web Sockets; Web Forms was standard HTTP.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#245
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this helps centralize everything to GitHub. Oh dear. That doesn't really sound like a good idea in the long term. So once you place all your projects/repositories on a third party git service like Github and it goes down, what can you do to push that critical change? Might be no big deal for personal projects but unacceptable for big business and open source orgs. You might as well call the CEO of GitHub for suppor…

> A better way is to self-host... Even ignoring the higher cost to set up, are you sure your self-hosted solution will have better uptime? Are you sure you'll be able to get things up and running faster when it does go down than GitHub will when GitHub goes down?

Short answer: Absolutely yes. If you can setup a website using Docker, you can do the same with a Git server on-premise. Many companies have done this without Github for years.

Why you ask? You have total control over the stack, CI, etc and some orgs have in-house sys-admins or IT department to do all the work independent of a third party like GitHub. Maybe you should ask the Linux Kernel Project, WebKit, OpenBSD, Mozilla Firefox and even RedoxOS maintainers about why they self-host their projects which some even have mirrors on GitHub.

On another note I keep seeing this over on some repositories and now because it is 'private' I don't even think it remotely makes sense or is a good idea to even use GitHub to backup private keys even if the repository is 'private'. As long as it is on someone else's server, you're not in control.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#246

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.

Transparency can give bad actors a way to game and workaround the system.

We're living with transparent juridical system and it works fine. Imagine that you could be thrown to jail without explaining a reason. That would be outrageous.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#247
post #81

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…

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.

Azure DevOps has a really generous free tier too, with unlimited public and private repos.

Just pointing that out - to be clear, I don't buy into all the Microsoft bashing that there is on HN (and I say that as someone who was around when Microsoft gave plenty reason to be hated).

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear to me whether this is possible under any configuration, but: can you enforce a two-person rule? I'd like all users to be able to merge accepted PRs, but no one should be able to push directly to master (unless an admin specifically elevates permissions to do that). The only way I can think of is to have a bot be the only one with commit access, and to interact with the bot to do merging. But that seems…

This sounds like how my previous company had GitHub configured. We couldn't push to master, but we could merge accepted PRs. Not sure if this was done with GitHub or with Git itself.

Generally speaking that's what Github's "protected branches" are, and it looks like you lose those for private repos when you switch to the free plan.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#250

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.

Transparency can give bad actors a way to game and workaround the system.

How is "game and workaround the system" different from "comply with policies"? Is compliance not the objective?
Post reply on HN