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

Introducing unlimited private repositories

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 662 posts

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#331

Post by pc86 »

mangeletti wrote: post #294
ProblemFactory wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I'd appreciate if their PR department didn't expect us to swallow this as a positive change. I don't have any numbers on how people structure their accounts on Github, but my feeling is that this is a positive change for the majority of Github users. Git encourages having many smaller repos for modules over massive single repos. $1/repo/month is fine for active projects, but gets expensive really fast if you wa…

Wow, you actually just made me think of something that could have been a great change for GitHub. Rather than completely limiting private repos in their old pricing model, they could have limited "active" repos, and created an archive feature, where archived repos were not available via Git, but still existed as backups and in case you ever wanted to make them active again. I do, however, believe that the new, per-us…

You can still remove a repo and keep backups yourself. Allowing it through GH makes it very easy to exploit this by archiving/unarchiving repos constantly.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#333

Post by [deleted] »

elbigbad wrote: post #302
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the production code here is on BitBucket. Forcing users to pay for privacy has always stuck in my throat as a business model. I think this change is due to GitHub feeling some heat from Atlassian and GitLab.

I have a lot of half-finished projects kicking around that I would love to start on github, but I'm concerned about privacy and it certainly isn't worth it to me to pay $7/mo rather than keeping them on my Dropbox. I haven't checked out BitBucket as I kind of thought GitHub was the only game in town, but will check it out. Would be nice to get these projects off my machine but not make them public. edit: ohh and I'm…

[deleted]

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#334

Post by inyourtenement »

unfunco wrote: post #259
thijsc wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For us as a small team it's a very positive change. Our monthly bill just went from $100 to $25.

And for us it's negative, our monthly bill has just increased by hundreds of dollars. In theory, our respective organisations could be in competition, and GitHub has just increased our monthly bill to subsidise your organisation, instead of shouldering the financial burden themselves.

They've not announced a timeline for forcing you to move plans. Maybe they never will.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#335

Post by patcon »

This is absolutely fucking atrocious news for any company who wants to run an agile operation.

I always framed the "Github vs Bitbucket" as an "agile vs enterprise" mentality -- BitBucket made you think hard about adding new people, and air on the side of limiting access -- ie. conceal by default. That's perfect for enterprise, but the worst fucking incentive ever for an org that wants to make as many projects as possible accessible to all company members. GitHub (in times past), removed this cognitive burden of thinking "does this person /really/ need access....?" -- ie. transparent by default.

But now they've fucked up.

I was always in favour of avoiding self-hosting when there was a great hosted service like GitHub available. But I would now never advise any company that I cared about to use GitHub. It will contort and twist the openness you wish to imbue in your growing company

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#336

Post by beberlei »

The incentive changes for this are so massive, nice "experiment" from an economics perspective.

1. penalizes OpenSource organizations that need a few private repos for password, server configuration or other things. Was 25$ before, now for example Doctrine with 48 collaborators it would be 394$. Even if just the admins have access to that repository.

2. penalizes collaboration, inviting every non-technical person in the company? 2-5 employees of the customer? not really. Will lead organizations to create a single "non-technical" user that everyone can use to comment on stuff. not to mention bots, especially since you need users for servers in more complex deployment scenarios.

3. rewards having many repos, small throw away stuff and generally will lead to "messy" repositories lying around everywhere that are committed on once or twice and never touched again. "Not having to think about another private repository", imho will produce technical debt for organizations.

4. users in many private orgs will need to pay or get paid for every organization each. I myself will be worth 45$ now for Github, being in private repositories of five different companies.

All in all, this just shows that Github does not care as much about open source anymore as it cares about Enterprise.

Btw: Mentioning the price jumps in repository usage of the old pricing is not really helpful. Consider a pricing that would be per repository (1$ for personal, 2$ for organizations) and doesnt have jumps and compare that to the new per using pricing. The new pricing only feels better for some, because you pay marginal costs for every single user instead of the old pricing where every 50 repositories you have to suddenly pay 100$ extra.

Edit: Forgot about bots, and deployment machine users (which even Github recommends for many scenarios)

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#337

Post by matwood »

elbigbad wrote: post #302
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the production code here is on BitBucket. Forcing users to pay for privacy has always stuck in my throat as a business model. I think this change is due to GitHub feeling some heat from Atlassian and GitLab.

I have a lot of half-finished projects kicking around that I would love to start on github, but I'm concerned about privacy and it certainly isn't worth it to me to pay $7/mo rather than keeping them on my Dropbox. I haven't checked out BitBucket as I kind of thought GitHub was the only game in town, but will check it out. Would be nice to get these projects off my machine but not make them public. edit: ohh and I'm…

Yeah, I dropped github years ago for bitbucket for my personal private repos. Can't beat free.

Their strategy worked because when I moved my employer off of SVN, a paid Bitbucket is where we went.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#338

Post by matwood »

matwood wrote: post #337
elbigbad wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a lot of half-finished projects kicking around that I would love to start on github, but I'm concerned about privacy and it certainly isn't worth it to me to pay $7/mo rather than keeping them on my Dropbox. I haven't checked out BitBucket as I kind of thought GitHub was the only game in town, but will check it out. Would be nice to get these projects off my machine but not make them public. edit: ohh and I'm…

Yeah, I dropped github years ago for bitbucket for my personal private repos. Can't beat free. Their strategy worked because when I moved my employer off of SVN, a paid Bitbucket is where we went.

Also, I think gh has this now, but for a long time bitbucket was the only one that gave you the ability to prevent history changes on certain branches (I always do develop and master). If this had been available in gh we would not have seen those couple big projects accidentally force push develop.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#339

Post by threatofrain »

krstck wrote: post #327
biztos wrote: post #247

I find it interesting that so many people here are unhappy with the change. Sure, prices will go up for a lot of organizations, but is $9/worker/month really a lot to pay for all the stuff GitHub offers? At Bay Area prices isn't that about 5 minutes of developer pay per month? For independent use it seems like a very positive change, in fact I'm guessing it's a direct challenge to GitLab. I was considering moving my…

> At Bay Area prices isn't that about 5 minutes of developer pay per month? I work for an academic nonprofit. Asking to spend any money is like pulling teeth, and any purchase I make has to go through many layers of bureaucracy who don't understand or care what I do and have no incentive to make my life easier. I don't want to leave Github, but now I have to, because I just won't get the approval to spend hundreds a…

Are you guys going through the nonprofit or the academics pricing?
Post reply on HN