511–520 of 716 posts
What bothers me is that this move didn't seem as well planned and prepared for than previous changes, not a good sign. github has a certain flow, hope MS doesn't destroy that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly I'm almost at the point where I'd prefer to manually perform CI tasks than use anything Microsoft. Why on earth are there so many domains in their login flow? My password manager can't make heads nor tails of it 90% of the time
Anyone who has ever done development on any Microsoft site has felt the pain of a million logins. I was working on Outlook stuff at my previous job and it was a nightmare. They have three different offerings of emails. You can login in Outlook and O365 with the same account iirc, but not the others. Or something like that. I just remember wanting to cry as I tried to figure out how to login. Then the API docs are eve…
I just took Microsoft/github up on their kind new deal and cancelled my pro plan at the end of the current yearly billing period.
Thanks Microsoft/github!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comparing 12.5% revenues to a pay cut is not misleading at all. Unless there is some reason to believe that making individual accounts free will somehow also reduce costs in a material way. Seems to me it will likely increase costs significantly as many more users will flock to create free private repos. In fact, it's more like giving you a 12% percent pay cut and then asking you to commute further to work.
Focusing solely on the impact to Github’s bottom line kinda misses the entire point of Microsoft wanting to acquire them in the first place. A decision like this has to be viewed in the wider context of Microsoft’s market strategy and the rest of their developer tool portfolio, of which Github is just one piece. If Microsoft just cared about short term gains, there were much better ways to blow 8 billion dollars.
Competition in a free market is good, but in the presence of monopolies, it's a self-destructing concept. TechCrunch wrote[0] "This feels like a sign of goodwill on behalf of Microsoft, which closed its acquisition of GitHub last October, with former Xamarin CEO Nat Friedman taking over as GitHub’s CEO." I believe it's more of a sign of an attempt to kill GitHub's rivals by hurting their revenue streams. As Aaron Lev…
I used to work for a great company in the developer tooling area, one of the big players came directly after us, ramped up a team, started copying our features and gave the product away for free. We were still doing well when I left, but it'll be interesting to see how it goes over the next few years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's fair to say that the personal accounts are irrelevant from a revenue perspective. Your assertion can only make sense if you also believe that a 12% paycut is irrelevant to your income.
> Your assertion can only make sense if you also believe that a 12% paycut is irrelevant to your income. You only see the short term. I was on Github during my university, all my projects were there, my team mate were on there too, it was pretty great. When my student account expired, I decided to move everything to Gitlab. I didn't want to move but I won't pay 7$ a month to host my old school projects and some perso…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. Github was always the go-to option and there was no reason to really even consider alternatives at first. People said "Bitbucket has free private repos!" for years and that was interesting but not compelling. Few users left Github because their competitors had free private repos. Github got acquired, and that acquisition basically erased any and all user trust in Github as a company because they no longer contr…
> Nobody believes in supporting Microsoft as a company. I believe Microsoft has been doing amazing things for developers the past few years.
Sure, that motivation started to erode the longer that Github stayed around and the more money they made on their enterprise products, but there was never a sudden shift that forced anyone to reconsider the question until Microsoft came in.
[1] Editing with footnote: This is also one reason Bitbucket struggled despite having free private repos. Atlassian is big and corporate and widely resented already, so they couldn't even offer that value proposition anymore than Microsoft can.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GitHub is creepy. Centralizing a decentralized software system then censoring projects isn't all rainbows and unicorns.
> censoring projects Have they ever done that? I wasn’t aware of any such thing.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9966118
https://github.com/nixxquality/WebMConverter/commit/c1ac0baa...
A lot of people are concerned about the “what if they make me the product since I’m no longer paying.” A few reasons I don’t think that will happen: - private, single contributor repos tend to be pretty small. it costs Github very little to service a single account. - Github is a growing social network for developers. Getting young engineers on the platform for free will pay off handsomely when they join a team and a…
It is no surprise but sound business reason that private repos will be available for free. For some background, check this HN classic: "Commoditize your complements" ( https://www.gwern.net/Complement#2 )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does gitlab have free integrated PR code review tools?
Yes. The free tier has the basic pull request functionality (called merge request). Some features (require approvals before PR merges from contributors, require approvers from certain groups) are limited to paid tiers on gitlab.com
Changing the terminology makes me not want to use gitlab.