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

511–520 of 662 posts

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#511

Post by cortesoft »

Sephr wrote: post #89
bkeepers wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are reaching out to customers that are in unique situations such as the one you're mentioning here. If you have questions about how the pricing changes affect you, please don’t hesitate to contact support@github.com.

If you need to give Epic Games special treatment just because they have a huge amount of outside collaborators, then your pricing model is broken. It would be more fair to charge $9/mo per organization member + $1/mo per active outside collaborator (somewhat similar to AWS CodeCommit) than to charge for every single active and inactive member and collaborator equally. Maybe throw in a 50% bulk discount for active out…

Do you understand how businesses work? Almost every company I work for has different terms for lots of customers. They negotiate a deal with a customer, and sign a contract. Every customer might pay different amounts.

That is just how business-to-business deals work.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#512

Post by morgante »

brianwawok wrote: post #433
CameronBanga wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why? If it is Encrypted in ansible vault or something it's not a terrible way to keep your creds.

If they're encrypted, you can put them in a public repo.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#513

Post by abiox »

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…

> I'd appreciate if their PR department didn't expect us to swallow this as a positive change.

it really depends on your perspective. i significantly prefer per-user over per-repo. i can see how per-repo might benefit others, however.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#514

Post by nhaehnle »

geofft wrote: post #500
rdancer wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Saying you shouldn't store it in git seems rather like saying you shouldn't store it in btrfs. Best practice is to avoid storing secrets in plaintext, or sharing secrets between users/roles. Yours isn't an argument in favour of git, it is an argument against btrfs. (I don't have any problem with storing passwords in that way, I'm just pointing out why it's not the best practice.)

> Best practice is to avoid storing secrets in plaintext How do you store them, then? If they're encrypted with a password, how do you store that secret? I'm pretty sure best practice is in fact to store things like SSL private keys, cookie HMAC secrets (e.g. Django's SECRET_KEY), and so forth on local disk unencrypted, protected by only filesystem permissions (and the host OS as a whole protected with standard means…

OpenSSH client private keys can be stored encrypted - that's what ssh-agent is for: it allows you to enter the key passphrase only once and then remember it for the rest of your desktop session.

OpenSSH server private keys, on the other hand - I don't think that makes a whole lot of sense. Unless you have a threat model that forces you to encrypt the entire server disk, but then adding private key encryption on top of that doesn't make much sense either.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#515

Post by maerF0x0 »

taytus wrote: post #492
emidln wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've used Bitbucket in the past. They charge per-user[1], and their pricing is significantly better free for 5 users and then once you eclipse 5 users it's $1/user up to 100 users and then $200 for unlimited users. [1] - https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing

This. I use bitbucket too and I can't understand why people are still paying github when bitbucket does exactly the same and is free.

People use github over bitbucket if they like the features that github provides, the diffs, issues etc. Not sure which features are unique to github alone, but each provider (including gitlab) has their own flavor. Many are just used to github flavor.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#516

Post by samstave »

Well, I will say that this is a good thing, because when we had paid for ~20 repos at a last company, and eng made a new repo - number 21, that was then made public by default as we were out of private repos. FUCK THAT.

He made a mistake and checked in (yes this is on him) an AWS access and secret.

Within hours we have 1,500 machines launched in every region doing bitcoin mining....

Making a repo "public by default" is pure BS.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#517

Post by alanfranzoni »

vinmat wrote: post #35
alanfranzoni wrote: post #14

Do outside collaborators count as paid users?

Hi alanfranzoni, Outside collaborators on public repositories of an organization are free. Only the ones invited to collaborate on private repositories are counted as paid users. Hope this helps!

This helps as a clarification. But doesn't help for usage. I was happy about the unlimited repos feature, and willing to pay the surplus. But if an outside collaborator with access to one repo out of 100s of ours must count towards headcount, that's a pretty useless model for us.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#518

Post by wlesieutre »

sequoia wrote: post #508
fps wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work for a non-profit open source organization that collaborates on github ( https://github.com/edx/ ) We have lots of people who aren't employees, but have signed a contributor agreement with our organization and contribute changes to our software. Our bill will go up from $200/month to over $2000/month with this new pricing. We can afford it (it's still a small fraction of our AWS bill) but it will force us to lo…

> We have lots of people who aren't employees, but have signed a contributor agreement with our organization and contribute changes to our software. So you have volunteers, working on your proprietary, private software for free. The labor is free & now you're complaining that you'll have to pay a per-free-laborer fee for the infrastructure to manage all these free-laborers? I hope I'm missing something here...

The problem being that a minor volunteer who donates 4 hours of coding over the course of a year would now incur a $108 github bill for having that access. It's totally out of proportion with how much they're using the service.

Or say you have 80 very-part-time contributors who together match the output of 1 full-time employee, github is going to charge you as much as they would for 80 full-time employees.

Any pricing structure is going to have some people who get a great deal and other people who get screwed, but it sucks when you've selected a platform, invested in getting set up on it, and then have the pricing rug pulled out from under you.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#519

Post by joeld42 »

taytus wrote: post #492
emidln wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've used Bitbucket in the past. They charge per-user[1], and their pricing is significantly better free for 5 users and then once you eclipse 5 users it's $1/user up to 100 users and then $200 for unlimited users. [1] - https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing

This. I use bitbucket too and I can't understand why people are still paying github when bitbucket does exactly the same and is free.

I also use Bitbucket and am very pleased with it. It seems like their model is that bitbucket is well integrated and complements their paid products like JIRA and Teamcity, so they are not depending on free users to upgrade like github needs to, so it seems more likely to be sustainable.
Post reply on HN