Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub is now free for teams

github.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 664 posts

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#411

Post by [deleted] »

DennisAleynikov wrote: post #399
kfrzcode wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't need to be the CEO of GitHub to answer that question. Why? Because money.

more importantly why not? github is not doing anything special to make ICE worse. the reasoning of divestment from disagreeable organizations is an individual right, but does not make sense to be adopted as a company policy to not work with LEO's. being politically minded at a company is fine, but trying to shame companies into adopting your ideals is unrealistic and counterproductive for neutral tools like Github

[deleted]

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#412

Post by xapata »

microdrum wrote: post #214
alecbenzer wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Um, AdWords.

That's auction driven, not a set price.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#413

Post by lucb1e »

snazz wrote: post #27
thereyougo wrote: post #15

Very few companies can make me feel like part of their journey like Github (Cloudflare also) They understand their target audience more than most of the companies out there. When they are making moves such as this, they explain what was behind it. I find it authentic.

Me too! Microsoft has done a really great job of managing the acquisition without ruining GitHub. GitHub already had a great understanding of their audience and a pulse on the community prior to being bought, so I'm really glad that they haven't lost that now that they're a Microsoft subsidiary.

> a really great job of managing the acquisition

I mean, if they hadn't done a thing it would have been a great job, too. Pumping in cash to fund previously paid features for free sure goes a long way, too, but the changes they've made so far I'd hardly call managing and more not touching it aside from making paid things free.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#414

Post by johnmarcus »

kevindong wrote: post #385

By and far the main difference between 'Team' ($4/person/month) and 'Enterprise' ($21/person/month) is SSO/LDAP [0]. The SSO tax is real [1]. [0]: https://github.com/pricing [1]: https://sso.tax/

Ha! sso.tax, what a great site. As an IT person I always thought this same thing with SSO - even if you have an identity provider, it's often under utilized because nearly everything else needs to go to enterprise pricing for SAML auth. I wouldn't mind paying $1-2 more per user/platform, but as sso.tax tallies, the price jump is often much more.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#415

Post by geofft »

hamandcheese wrote: post #409
geofft wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain this position? If GitHub were funding their free teams product with revenue from, say, organized crime which is kidnapping children, would it be appropriate and on-topic to ask about that? But it's no longer appropriate when it's a government agency? Is it just US government agencies, or would it be appropriate again to ask if the funding were coming from ISIS? Also, is it generally the case that comp…

Presumably ICE buys light bulbs. Should we also call out light bulb manufacturers and distributors for “working with ICE”? It’s not about politics for me, but rather the viewpoint that companies shouldn’t be the moral police of their customers.

I mean, I'm open to discussing whether we should or shouldn't, but I think it's not an off-topic discussion!

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#416

Post by tptacek »

user5994461 wrote: post #403
tptacek wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the closed-source SAML library you're thinking of? Every SAML integration I've seen has been done with an open-source library.

I mean the company is writing it's own code for a significant part. Let's say one has to integrate SAML/OIDC into a Java app of some sort. One can find an open source library to handle part of the SAML or XML in Java, but it doesn't take the right settings or import user attributes as needed or handle URL redirections properly. So the company has to write a ton of authentication code to make it work. It may start fro…

One will find a library to do the SAML. That library will almost certainly do the XML (most likely with xmlsec1). The library will have a call for the ACS endpoint, for the SSO login endpoint, and maybe for the SLO endpoint; it won't implement the endpoints itself, but it'll implement all the logic of the endpoint.

The company will end up writing a ton of authentication and authorization code --- it'll do that no matter what, because the application will have its own security logic, like all applications do.

(OIDC doesn't use XML. But the story is the same, with different endpoints.)

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#417

Post by lucb1e »

seneca wrote: post #103

I've not been a big fan of GitHub historically, but the pace of innovation since the MS acquisition is really impressive. I wonder how much of that is MS influence vs just MS funding.

That's odd, it's the opposite for me. I did like GitHub, but then setup a Gitea and made sure to figure out how to move things over (even if I haven't done it since they haven't really given me a reason) after Microsoft acquired it. Now I watch every move with a weary eye, though truth be told so far it's going fine (mostly by being hands-off, of course).

I do assume a lot of this is their own money, but with the financial security that Microsoft offers you just can't do much wrong. Even without actual money actually moving, it might still be MS funding that makes the difference.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#418

Post by user5994461 »

tptacek wrote: post #368
user5994461 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SAML is a technology problem, on top of all other problems. The messages are under specified and overcomplicated, doing incredibly obscure stuff (XML signing and canonization for one) that nobody can understand and implement. That's mainly why it's so hard to use and there is so little support from libraries. As security researcher, we could nitpick all days on security being hard, no matter the solution. It is factu…

1. I don't think this particular thread is a good venue to litigate SAML vs. OIDC. 2. I think the product complexity issues are, like, 95% the same whether you use OIDC or SAML. 3. I think no matter how much simplification you got from using OIDC instead of SAML, none of it is going to offset the actual reason why SSO integration is a paid feature. 4. I agree that SAML is much worse than OIDC from a protocol implemen…

I basically agree with the points.

Ironically, the first point makes me realize that half the work to bring in a product in an entreprise is to deploy and set it up -properly with authentication- while the other half is to get the budget and approvals to buy it. Thus it's rather relevant to the thread in an unfortunate way.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#419

Post by lucb1e »

vaylian wrote: post #238

I wonder if this will lead to more closed source software being written. I don't mean by MS specifically, but overall.

Same. I liked that GitHub really nudged you to be open unless you were willing to pay to keep it closed (well, sure, you can go ahead and setup your own server or find a competitor you like, but in the base form, if you want to be part of the ecosystem, be open) and am wondering just how many student projects are now staying behind locked doors because GitHub wants to catch bigger fish.

Not saying they're a philanthropic organisation that should promote open source to the kids or anything, just agreeing about an almost certain side effect.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#420

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

tracker1 wrote: post #393
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #75

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.

I don't think it was particularly difficult to use... the multi-os targets are probably about the most confusing. I tend to stick with bare scripts and npm scripts as much as possible though, so the environment doesn't matter as much.

The YAML configuration is something I have to learn that provides no value-add outside of GitHub. If it was at least based on Docker, you could re-use existing technical knowledge or teach people something that's valuable in other contexts.
Post reply on HN