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

341–350 of 662 posts

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#341

Post by alchemical »

Honestly when I read the title I thought GH switched their business model and offered free users the ability to start a private repo, but this is not the case.

If it is the case that I have to pay to have privacy on Github, then it imposes a privacy-rich versus privacy-poor dichotomy which I am uncomfortable with. Now I know as far as these things go (GH can be subject to National Security Letters), that GH is not really absolutely private. (Backdoors into people's 'secret' GISTS anyone?).

GH had an opportunity here to change their business model so that free users can avail of private repos, and GH could still manage to bring in revenue. GH primarily makes the bulk of their income from what I call 'stakeholder accounts'. That is; those companies who simply couldn't function correctly if GH didn't exist. It is in these stakeholders that there is a symbiotic relationship of revenue for GH, and value for the stakeholder(s).

There are very little lone private individuals who have that kind of symbiotic relationship, and so at least give these low income users the same equal rights of privacy as behemoth tech organizations. It makes sense.

In terms of how GH gets revenue from these users, there are countless other ways to do this instead of relying on the monolithic device of a premium subscription model. Offer paid licenses for their proprietary GH clients. (A one off payment of $20.00 for the GH Windows client is something I would actually pay money for)...

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#342

Post by pc86 »

beberlei wrote: post #310
frostymarvelous wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know who gives them advice, but that's just horrible. First, people ran to bitbucket visit if the per repo pricing. Now that that's been fixed, we're faced with high costs per user. That difference can be used to purchase other Atlassian products like Jira and Bamboo. How can github beat that value? I think github is satisfied with bring #1 for hosting open source software.

god beware if your open source project needs a single private repository to share passwords between admins for example or private config for your webserver. Suddenly you see yourself at 394$ compared to the 7$ you paid before.

> a single private repository to share passwords between admins

Please tell me you're kidding.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#343

Post by VLM »

fps wrote: post #278
jnmandal wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are non profit and open source do you really need private repos?

We have about 100 private repos at the moment, including internal tools, branding related components, infrastructure code and pre-release stuff that we're not developing in the open. We may just move those to AWS code commit, gitlab or gogs and switch back to a free org.

"that we're not developing in the open"

Honest question... why?

I totally understand the mindset of "gotta go all secret squirrel to protect our profits" but if your org isn't in it for the profits there's not much to protect?

I have seen examples of people performing very naughty acts like private repos to hold plain text passwords, plain text cloud service keys, plain text corporate credit card numbers for expense payments, etc.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#345

Post by morgante »

beberlei wrote: post #310
frostymarvelous wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know who gives them advice, but that's just horrible. First, people ran to bitbucket visit if the per repo pricing. Now that that's been fixed, we're faced with high costs per user. That difference can be used to purchase other Atlassian products like Jira and Bamboo. How can github beat that value? I think github is satisfied with bring #1 for hosting open source software.

god beware if your open source project needs a single private repository to share passwords between admins for example or private config for your webserver. Suddenly you see yourself at 394$ compared to the 7$ you paid before.

> beware if your open source project needs a single private repository to share passwords

Passwords emphatically do not belong in git.

Your private repos should be maintained such that accessing them would not compromise your security.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#346

Post by unethical_ban »

alchemical wrote: post #341

Honestly when I read the title I thought GH switched their business model and offered free users the ability to start a private repo, but this is not the case. If it is the case that I have to pay to have privacy on Github, then it imposes a privacy-rich versus privacy-poor dichotomy which I am uncomfortable with. Now I know as far as these things go (GH can be subject to National Security Letters), that GH is not re…

What are you going on about? You're bringing in National Security Letters into a discussion about public vs. private repos on Github? Do you know what a threat model is?

I wager they've kept people using public by default for several reasons, among them these:

* It gives them something to upsell on. If you're not completely poor, giving $7/mo for a code repo is not unreasonable. Or, to price it in a more relatable manner, 1.5 mochas.

* It encourages the "social coding" ecosystem. I believe the network effect of Github is the strongest thing keeping people using it instead of dispersing across Bitbucket/Gitlab/etc. a lot more.

And as a simple point of disagreement, I think fewer people would pay for a Github client than a private Github repo. And why is charging for a client so much more ethical to you than charging for a service, with ongoing maintenance costs?

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#347

Post by mark_l_watson »

This will help organizations that keep huge monolithic repos on GH - one of my customers does that. They have one repo that should be dozens of smaller repos.

I use GH for my open source projects and code examples for my books and I use Bitbucket (which is also a great service) for my private repos. I have always felt somewhat guilty with this setup, working both companies for free services.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#348

Post by krstck »

threatofrain wrote: post #339
krstck wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Their nonprofit accounts are designed for "nonacademic" orgs. If there's an account type that's applicable to university research (not just students) then I'd be thrilled.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#349

Post by pothibo »

alchemical wrote: post #341

Honestly when I read the title I thought GH switched their business model and offered free users the ability to start a private repo, but this is not the case. If it is the case that I have to pay to have privacy on Github, then it imposes a privacy-rich versus privacy-poor dichotomy which I am uncomfortable with. Now I know as far as these things go (GH can be subject to National Security Letters), that GH is not re…

It's 7$/month. You sure can be made uncomfortable easily.

If someone wants a private repo but doesn't value his/her private code to the amount of 7$/month for ALL their private repos, then I guess it shouldn't have been made private in the first place.

FWIW, a Big Mac combo is around the same price. One is junk, the other is where you showcase/store all your professionnal knowledge and experience.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#350

Post by WillAbides »

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…

> I don't want to leave Github, but now I have to, because I just won't get the approval to spend ~100's a month.

No you don't have to leave GitHub now. GitHub isn't forcing existing customers onto the new pricing, and it says in the post that if that changes at least 12 months notice will be given.

Post reply on HN