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

401–410 of 662 posts

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#401

Post by avn2109 »

hunvreus wrote: post #130

1. Take a gazillion dollars in funding on an over-hyped valuation, 2. Go through significant organizational changes that end up with the departure of a co-founder (and more suits in the building). 3. Notice that a significant segment of your growth (VC-funded startups) are running out of money. 4. Switch to a user-based pricing to generate more revenue for investors, but spin it as a freebie "Hey! Look at the cool un…

From the article: "And while we're currently not enforcing a timeline to move..."

I too was sad to see many of the new developments at Github, but if they were money grubbing like you say, wouldn't they make everyone switch faster than this?

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#402

Post by sytse »

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.

You're very welcome to switch to GitLab.com, we are free forever https://about.gitlab.com/gitlab-com/#why-gitlab-com-will-be-... and it can import directly from GitHub.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#403

Post by Xylakant »

therealmarv wrote: post #388
Xylakant wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a non-profit that I collaborate with [1] we use private repos to keep the server setup and some tickets that contain sensitive information (user data). All other code is open source. Obviously we don't want to keep api keys etc. in the public repos. [1] https://github.com/sozialhelden/wheelmap

never store sensitive data like API keys in a repository. Or you can do that but encrypt it so that nobody which can view your repo (even if it's private) can use that data immediately. It's like storing passwords in plaintext in a DB. Every (DB) admin will tell you: Don't/Never do that. I've recently also have to do with this problems while doing server setup with a private repo. I'm using Ansible and Ansible Vault…

see, the whole repo is accessible to the members of the team that are allowed to see the secret - basically the two folks that have root on the machine anyways. There's very limited use in encrypting the repo. There are no SSL keys or any secrets that would require tight security. It's basically our newrelic and some other api keys for reporting services. Even if that repo would be breached you could only start sending fake data to those services.

I'm more concerned about someone hacking the machine than someone hacking github to access the repo and retrieve the newrelic key from there.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#404

Post by uxp »

unfunco wrote: post #382
odonnellryan wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GitHub has just increased our monthly bill to subsidise your organisation, instead of shouldering the financial burden themselves. This is a really weird argument. They are a company supplying a service, why should they ever have to shoulder the bill? I'd argue that if things stayed the same, this small company would subsidize you: if you have 100 accounts using 1 repo it's more likely you're using more resources t…

My point is that larger companies are now be punished for a failed initial pricing model by GitHub. I prefer the new pricing model from a personal point of view, but for larger organisations it's now too expensive and I think many will relocate their repositories to BitBucket, or GitLab, or Gogs, or etcetera. Edit: My parent post is being down voted and that's fine, my point was not made in anger, it was an observati…

> a failed initial pricing model by GitHub

It's been 8 years since they revealed their pricing model, which has remained mostly unchanged on the lower end and only adjusted on the high end to account for GitHub Enterprise and suggest people move to that instead of the gargantuan $3k/mo plans. I don't know many SaaS companies that don't tweak their pricing much more infrequently than that. Thoughtbot's Giant Robots Smashing into Other Giant Robots podcast for the past few episodes has been consistently talking about A/B testing pricing models, prices changes and signup, conversion and churn, as a weekly adjustment on some of their services (FormKeep, Upcase, etc)

https://github.com/blog/22-the-pricing-plans

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#405

Post by CameronBanga »

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.

I hope that any team using github to share passwords is driven to move away from that method because of this price change. That's a bad bad idea.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#406

Post by z3t4 »

lox wrote: post #252
z3t4 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would need a lot of margin to not base the price on the production costs. If 200 users cost double as much as 100 users, it's hard to not base the price on number of users.

Pricing is a function of what people will pay for it, not what it costs to make. Consider Slack as a fine example.

I read an article not long ago that Github had to spin up three physical machines, just to handle one customer. Although it was an extreme example. Compared to slack, who could probably have a million users one a single machine, making it almost zero marginal cost per new user. While a user for Github means buying more hardware and a notable marginal cost.

If you for example are a reseller of commodity goods, you can't have a lower price then the price you buy it for. So you can't have a model of say unlimited goods for a monthly fee. And the price will most likely be based on per good.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#407

Post by BinaryIdiot »

Looks like with our company the price goes from $25 a month to $133 if we move (or are forced to move) over to the cost-per-user model.

GitLab was already looking good, if we're forced to change well likely move to GitLab. Github's pricing was already overly expensive for what you get, in my opinion.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#408

Post by matthoffman »

caseymarquis wrote: post #237

The number of very small teams or individuals this encourages to start using github probably allows every organization who can't afford this to leave and github to still increase the money they're making. It seems like a good move based on my imagined profile of their user base. 1 million teens and young 20-somethings just decided they'll give 7$ a month to github. For bigger organizations, this is practically no mon…

> Sounds like the only customers being lost were those using github for no-commit users. Is that really a huge segment? If so they just need a special account status to fix this.

I would think this is a large segment, or at least Github would like it to be. Any software company that sells its software directly, and so has a sales team, a support team, marketing and so on will need to make all of those people users in Github if they're going to raise GH issues, see the code, prototype something for a client, help with branding, or anything else. If you're using Github the way they want you to (issue tracking, wiki, all of the things Github adds over vanilla Git that are "sticky"/hard to transfer to a competing service) you don't want to restrict access to just your developers. You want your whole company to be using it.

In any software company I've worked for, those non-developer users number 3-4x the actual number of developers. And I've never worked for a company that would consider restricting which users could raise issues with the product.

I agree that having a non-commit account status that didn't count toward the per-user pricing would fix this, for that particular (I think common?) case.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#409

Post by CameronBanga »

bsnape wrote: post #368
Etheryte wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you already invest into this monthly, why don't you just have GitLab on premise?

We like to use hosted services rather than host them on-prem where possible (AWS, Artifactory, Slack, GitHub). For the size of our company we have relatively few engineers. Not hosting things ourselves increases our productivity and we can concentrate on our own products :-)

GitLab has a hosted solution, take a look at that. We love them, and they making moving over from GitHub easy.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#410

Post by Xylakant »

woah wrote: post #399
Xylakant wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

care to explain why? I need to keep my API keys somewhere so I can roll them out to the machine. Keeping them in git is as good as any storage - what would you propose instead? A shared dropbox account?

What the hell? Are you defending a decision to keep keys unencrypted in a git repo?

yes, indeed I am. I'm all in favor of keeping the tools used to a level where the effort makes sense to protect the value of the goods. I totally could lock up my newrelic api key in a bank safe, double encrypted with two persons 4096 bit GPG keys, but that would be a little overkill, wouldn't it? Do you do that? I'd be moderately annoyed if somebody started pushing false metrics to my NR account, but that's about all the damage they could do with the information in that repo. So what level of effort would you propose?
Post reply on HN