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

601–610 of 664 posts

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#601

Post by pc86 »

yellowapple wrote: post #546
pc86 wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said, it's not always that simple. When it's not, something less than 100% transparency allows one to look at the given particulars of a case and determine whether or not someone is simply trying to evade the spirit of a rule or not. It gives enforcement actors a little lee-way that they wouldn't otherwise have.

> It gives enforcement actors a little lee-way that they wouldn't otherwise have. Which can be and often is subject to abuse.

One of the worst things about engineers in general and HN specifically is we all pretend that law is executed like code, in a vacuum, idempotently based on the inputs. That's was, is, and will never be the case.

Abuse can be exposed and punished, and very often is.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#602

Post by frosted-flakes »

K0SM0S wrote: post #207
irrational wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The real question is whether corporations behave like "someone", like a natural (biological, real flesh-and-blood) person. Whereas there is a need for legal corporate personhood (so they can enter contracts, be sued and sue others, etc), the extent to which a corporation has a "personality" is very much debatable— sign contracts, sure; but fund political candidates? Have a political opinion even? That's crossing a bi…

> Whatever greatness or horrors we observe from corporations should be attributed directly to the natural people who make those decisions— it's not Boeing that's bad, it's whoever's in charge and whoever condoned it. People. Boeing is just a 6-letter words, you can't put "Boeing" in jail, nor make it "Sir" by a Queen...

I think it's interesting how British English pluralises companies and groups in general, in recognition of this fact. For example, "Boeing have made a big mistake with the 737 MAX", where American English would use has. Or, "the family next door are lovely".

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#603

Post by jannotti »

sebst wrote: post #475
JohnBooty wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I would definitely hate to trust Microsoft with my enterprise software build pipeline because of how they refused to support Microsoft Bob.

Well, probably not because of Bob, but their cloud based offerings have make me wonder about trust. - Business Contact Manager for Outlook, Outlook Customer Manager - Microsoft Invoicing, Listings etc. And these are critical applications for a company. Have a look at Sharepoint which is widely used and has an uncertain future. Or the strategy behind Lync, Skype and now teams. But we'll see. Microsoft has shifted in a…

Sharepoint has an uncertain future? I had never heard of it a year ago, but as I got to know the "enterprise" space, it seems every large company is heavily invested in it. What might replace the need to share documents across a company in the MS world?

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#604

Post by jannotti »

sytelus wrote: post #431
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #123

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.

No, it’s not fair. Banning a repo should be taken as seriously as banning a book. Living in a country that is US where github HQ is hosted, freedom of speech should be prized and cared for dearly. For a commercial company, there should be only one reason to ban a repo and that is to abide with a law. For even that company should do everything in its power to prevent that or provide a viable lawful alternative. This s…

"Banning a book" colloquially means that nobody is allowed to read that book, it conjures images of book burnings and the gestapo searching your house for contraband. "Banning" a repo here means, "Github is not offering you free resources to develop your code. Fortunately, you're using a distributed source control management scheme so everyone has a backup. Please take it elsewhere."

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#605

Post by wayneftw »

tommica wrote: post #591
james_s_tayler wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes my wife wants an explanation from me the human being who said he would take the trash out but then never did.

Then maybe you should own up to the consequences of the choice you made and explain your reasoning for not fulfilling the promise that you made.

In this case she deserves to get ignored for even asking in the first place because she knew you were working overtime all month and she doesn't even have a job! She just sits on her ass all day complaining about how things could have been better if you would just do more free work on the Atom editor for her after you get home and take out the garbage.

When you said "yes", you were just trying to be nice. It's not like you lied - you will take it out... next week.

She should probably just take the garbage out herself if she doesn't like the schedule you do it on. It's not like a few extra garbage bags sitting outside until next week is a big deal. If she has time to complain, she has time to do it herself.

I honestly have no respect for this stupid b____ and I'd advise you to divorce her ASAP.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#606

Post by pookeh »

vertis wrote: post #547
natfriedman wrote: post #26

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'…

Hi nat, I came here prepared to ask about how this would play out for annual billing customers since I only just set it up in March. On searching, I can't actually find where you charged me, so I suspect you might have pre-empted this. So instead of a question, this is more thank you. I'm a tiny bootstrapped startup and was only using 3 of the 5 previously minimum seats. I'm a prime beneficiary of this change, and lo…

Came here to ask the same thing. I literally set up Teams @ $25/month for 2 seats only and paid in full for annual...

How does this price change affect me?

Also, has the number of minutes for Actions gone down from 10k to 2k monthly?

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#607

Post by aaron_m04 »

jannotti wrote: post #604
sytelus wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it’s not fair. Banning a repo should be taken as seriously as banning a book. Living in a country that is US where github HQ is hosted, freedom of speech should be prized and cared for dearly. For a commercial company, there should be only one reason to ban a repo and that is to abide with a law. For even that company should do everything in its power to prevent that or provide a viable lawful alternative. This s…

"Banning a book" colloquially means that nobody is allowed to read that book, it conjures images of book burnings and the gestapo searching your house for contraband. "Banning" a repo here means, "Github is not offering you free resources to develop your code. Fortunately, you're using a distributed source control management scheme so everyone has a backup. Please take it elsewhere."

In theory, yes. In practice, your github repo is more like a domain name. There should be due process.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#609

Post by skoskie »

jedberg wrote: post #114
mythz wrote: post #51

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…

So far Microsoft isn’t taking customers away from AWS. They’re just expanding the total market. But I do wonder if AWS will try to buy gitlab.

God, I hope not. I like GitLab. I feel like Amazon would ruin it.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#610

Post by brian_herman »

ss3000 wrote: post #563
meritt wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft owns Github. Microsoft owns VS Code. VS Code is superior to Atom. Do you need an official comment? It seems abundantly obvious to me. Nat is the CEO of GitHub, not Microsoft, and despite any promises made on a Reddit AMA a year ago, why would they devote resources to two competing editors?

All I really want is to hear an explanation from Nat Friedman, CEO of GitHub, the human being, who said he wouldn't pull resources away from Atom development and then evidently did so soon after, to end all this needless speculation once and for all (and what you've suggested in your comment is still speculation, however plausible it might seem to you). It offers very little solace to the few Atom users still hanging…

Why does he owe you an explanation for a product that was free? Its posts like this that convince him that open source isn't worth contributing to.
Post reply on HN