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

521–530 of 662 posts

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#521

Post by StevePerkins »

WillAbides wrote: post #350
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…

> 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.

What announcement are you reading? It states very clearly that this is the new pricing model, period.

Yes, existing customers have a 12-month grace period before they're impacted by a price change... but that clock just started ticking. There isn't an indefinite opt-out for this model change.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#522

Post by etjossem »

sytse wrote: post #413
therealmarv wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitbucket is ok for private repos. I think private repos are relatively secure there because Atlassian has much of reputation to loose if there is a security breach. Another plus for Bitbucket is the integration with Jira and other Atlassians tools. Beside that plus points I will rather go to GitLab.com (more features, better UI and integration with 3rd party) but my trust in private repos is lower there than on Bitb…

How could we convince you that at GitLab we take security very seriously?

Creating a Security page on the site to explain your infosec policies would go a long way. I like that we're able to view previous disclosures [1] and active security issues [2], but I had to dig a bit to find them. Surface those.

[1] https://about.gitlab.com/vulnerability-acknowledgements/

[2] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues?label_name%5B...

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#523

Post by derrekl »

There is one case we have where the newer per seat pricing doesn't facilitate how we're using github. One of our repositories is "docs" with a bunch of markdown files, pdfs, images, and other documents related to our tech. It's mostly used in a read only way by a bunch of non-developers while engineers contribute heavily to the documentation. Paying $9/month per biz person to be able to view the documentation is too much and will force that use case off to Confluence or some other wiki/documenting tool.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#524

Post by sgk284 »

fps wrote: post #269
cstejerean wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per user pricing makes a lot more sense than per repo pricing. This way larger organizations pay more money than smaller ones regardless of how they structure their code. This is a good deal for small organizations that like to have many small repositories (for internal libraries, utilities, micro services, modules, etc). Sure, it screws up a few models that rely on external collaborators to get access to private rep…

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…

It's a non-profit and open source? Why not just use public repos like Code.org and many other non-profit software teams. $0/mo is surely better for a non-profit.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#525

Post by msbarnett »

arnvald wrote: post #40

A small comparison: Team | Cost Before | Cost Now 1 repo, 5 users | $25 | $25 1 repo, 10 users | $25 | $70 11 repos, 5 users | $50 | $25 11 repos, 10 users | $50 | $70 5 repos, 50 users | $25 | $430 50 repos, 5 users | $100 | $25 50 repos, 50 users | $100 | $430 I'm not sure how common are organizations with few users and large number of repose - I guess software houses that keep old projects (for maintenance and fut…

> I'm not sure how common are organizations with few users and large number of repose - I guess software houses that keep old projects (for maintenance and future requests from clients) fall into this category, but who else?

Any startup architected around microservices, for one

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#526

Post by geofft »

nhaehnle wrote: post #514
geofft wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 o…

Right, exactly. (I did mean to say "server", thanks.) It sounds like the secrets in question are essentially analogous to OpenSSH private keys: they allow a server / service to prove its own identity to others, and the servers should be able to launch automatically at boot so there's not a reasonable place to enter a passphrase.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#528

Post by lox »

z3t4 wrote: post #406
lox wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not sure what your point is. Your initial comment seemed to indicate that you thought Github was increasing their pricing because they were struggling to pay for the underlying infrastructure, or that the per-customer cost was too high for the current margins. This is almost certainly not the case, they have simply realized that compared to similar services they are leaving a staggering amount of money on the table, and that people will pay a lot more. I imagine this pricing change will substantially improve their business in all regards.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#529

Post by jglovier »

unfunco wrote: post #431
uxp wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Sm…

Failed might have been a strong and stupid word, it's worked for GitHub. The new model just doesn't work for our organisation, and that's not the fault of GitHub but it does cause us some headaches.

Sorry to hear this change is frustrating for your team. If the new model doesn't work for you, can stay on the old structure. We're not automatically migrating anyone, so you can stay on the old plan. If we ever do decide to phase out the legacy structure completely, you'll still have 12 months from that point before you have to move over. (We've updated the blog post to reflect that clarification, too)

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#530

Post by fps »

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 software is AGPLv3'd, and run by hundreds of educational organizations around the world. Those organizations typically contribute changes back via Github. Non-employees don't contribute to our private repositories. We gain quite a bit from maintaining a large open source community, but it's not "free labor."
Post reply on HN