Live data from Hacker News

GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

news.ycombinator.com

51–60 of 66 posts

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#51

They did the same accidentally to the co-founder https://twitter.com/defunkt/status/1754610843361362360 Once I'd seen that, I doubled down on my self hosted GitLab and never looked back. GitHub can be a mirror for public good, but it's no castle I want to be a prisoner of.

That's astonishingly terrible, has GitHub gone public to address the issue? Can't seem to find GitHub's response in what happened

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#52
Automated account suspension is anti-consumerist for the % of false positives. And since that % likely is low, companies get away with ridiculous processes for recovering your account.

I recently encountered this with Apple (https://skogsbrus.xyz/dont-put-all-your-apples-in-one-basket...). After 2 months I'm still fighting them to recover some of my devices.

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#53
post #47
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I'm concerned, the first platform to get federated merge requests will win it all.

Merge requests are already federated on any platform using Git, just email an author.

Email is federated, but I don't see how that means "any platform using Git" now has federated merge requests?

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#54

Automated account suspension is anti-consumerist for the % of false positives. And since that % likely is low, companies get away with ridiculous processes for recovering your account. I recently encountered this with Apple ( https://skogsbrus.xyz/dont-put-all-your-apples-in-one-basket... ). After 2 months I'm still fighting them to recover some of my devices.

Take them to whatever the Swedish equivalent of the small claims court is. You are in the EU, the court will have a field day.

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#55
post #38
post #9

I've used GitHub for years knowing that Microsoft owning it, they're headed for a place I won't like. I just haven't experienced that until now. I've been trying out sr.ht and codeberg.org. Sadly the product is nowhere near GitHub.

I just installed gitea and never looked back. Lightweight, does all I need and full control. Microsoft killing the place was very foreseeable

Gitea just has way too many security vulnerabilities for me to confidently run an open instance:

https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-1918...

I don't think that a modern git web front-end needs to either look ugly and lack basic features, or be a security vulnerability, or be run by a gigantic corporation.

It just happens that you can only choose between those right now.

I really wish there were something as nice as GitHub, self-hosted, with a better security model.

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#56
post #53
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Merge requests are already federated on any platform using Git, just email an author.

Email is federated, but I don't see how that means "any platform using Git" now has federated merge requests?

You email the author, the author can merge your patch or pull from your repo/branch.

Merging your patch even comes built-in with Git. The place hosting your Git repo doesn't need anything special to support this. You email the author, they merge your patch and then git push.

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#58
post #9

I've used GitHub for years knowing that Microsoft owning it, they're headed for a place I won't like. I just haven't experienced that until now. I've been trying out sr.ht and codeberg.org. Sadly the product is nowhere near GitHub.

My understanding is that sr.ht doesn't allow a user without an account to collaborate with a user that has one. So effectively _all_ developers must pay for the privilege to "work" on a project.

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#59

They did the same accidentally to the co-founder https://twitter.com/defunkt/status/1754610843361362360 Once I'd seen that, I doubled down on my self hosted GitLab and never looked back. GitHub can be a mirror for public good, but it's no castle I want to be a prisoner of.

I love GitLab, but the amount of serious security vulnerabilities (multiple RCEs!) make me quite nervous about the idea of self-hosting it. How do other people deal with this? Are there any competitive alternatives that have a better security record?

Re: GitHub bans organizations without warning or explanation

#60
post #56
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Email is federated, but I don't see how that means "any platform using Git" now has federated merge requests?

You email the author, the author can merge your patch or pull from your repo/branch. Merging your patch even comes built-in with Git. The place hosting your Git repo doesn't need anything special to support this. You email the author, they merge your patch and then git push.

By this definition, everything is federated, because you can email the author and ask them to post something for you.
Post reply on HN