Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi Nat, with Microsoft now owning Github, I'm really curious to know what the future holds for both Azure DevOps and Github? I'm a user of both - Github for OSS, and Azure DevOps for private work. IMO, these areas are where they are best suited - pipelines in particular are really powerful in Azure DevOps, and user/permission management, AAD integration and integration with build agents are all excellent. I really li…
Do you plan to make github enterprise available for free on their own premises for teams?
GitHub is now free for teams
251–260 of 664 posts
Re: GitHub is now free for teams
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you, it summarises it pretty well. MS is back pretty strong. It's also to note they attacking on two fronts, the open source and startup folks (VS code, github, typescrip, azure) , and the enterprise with communication, productivity tools and cloud infra (Teams, Office 365, Azure) Owned.
I don't think it's an attack to try and make good products. Unless they're playing dirty / being anticompetitive, you're just describing a company making dev and cloud products.
Make no mistake: this is about control.
Re: GitHub is now free for teams
#253Earlier 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.
Unless you stretch the term so broadly that "I think Apple is planning to produce a mobile phone" becomes a conspiracy theory, I suppose.
Re: GitHub is now free for teams
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
Passwords, rate limits, resets, etc. are the same for everyone, and so are the problems and the solutions to those. SAML on the other hand is different for each organization. Providers pay Auth0 and the like to have developers on staff who know the pitfalls and quirks of ADFS 3.0 on Windows Server 2012 R2, so they don't have to. Dealing with a single Okta as IdP integration is like the absolute best-case scenario the…
It's a little odd to say something is not a "net security benefit" and, in the next sentence, make a powerful case for it as a net security benefit. SSO is probably the most important organization security tool there is, and a survey of tech company CSOs will average it in the top 3, if not the top 2 technology acquisitions most would make at a new firm (this is a question I've actually surveyed).
I'm however speaking from the point of view of the service provider (the SaaS app) and about SAML in particular. I feel that the addition of SAML into a given service is a net-negative from that service's security point of view. It's a large additional complex attack surface, many open source SAML libraries that I've reviewed have a history (and in some cases open issues right now) of "pants on head" type of security errors. A popular library in use right now, has a known race condition where it gets confused if there are concurrent SAML requests happening.
And that's just the libraries. Then you have to use them correctly. The libraries do the absolute minimum checking since they don't have the context, you have to add a laundry list of your own checks to them. Just recently there was a HN article about taking SAML assertions posted to provider A and re-using them on provider B, where clearly the most basic of checks aren't in place at all. There's all kinds of confused-deputy type of problems I believe most service providers don't think about at all. And that was an easily offline checked attribute, I believe if you'd start to check how many services correctly implement even the basic "inResponseTo" check on SP-initiated flows (which requires a distributed cache on the service provider side), you'd find they don't.
Re: GitHub is now free for teams
#255Hi 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'…
Re: GitHub is now free for teams
#256Hi 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'…
Hi Nat, with Microsoft now owning Github, I'm really curious to know what the future holds for both Azure DevOps and Github? I'm a user of both - Github for OSS, and Azure DevOps for private work. IMO, these areas are where they are best suited - pipelines in particular are really powerful in Azure DevOps, and user/permission management, AAD integration and integration with build agents are all excellent. I really li…
Re: GitHub is now free for teams
#257Earlier 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 went to go downgrade to the free plan and noticed that GitHub Pages static sites served from Private repos still require payment. That will keep me on $4/month for now.
Re: GitHub is now free for teams
#258Hi 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'…
Slightly off topic, but I would like to request that you open Github for Education [1] for pandemic-related home-schoolers. Currently it requires verification as an accredited school & credentials. Any help is appreciated. [1] https://education.github.com/schools
And for the classroom system, it's open-source (https://classroom.github.com/) and you can run it on a box at home. That'd work given you probably only have a couple users at any one time.
Re: GitHub is now free for teams
#259Re: GitHub is now free for teams
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
I went to go downgrade to the free plan and noticed that GitHub Pages static sites served from Private repos still require payment. That will keep me on $4/month for now.
I'm curious: since GitHub Pages intended to PUBLISH pages, why to make the repo PRIVATE?