Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub is now free for teams

github.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 664 posts

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#641

Post by quadrangle »

sneak wrote: post #594
quadrangle wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EEE strategy doesn't require starting out as a monopoly, it's just that it's easier if you're already a monopoly. One could argue that EEE is a strategy to gain monopoly status. Microsoft does NOT have a monopoly in this space currently, but perhaps they want to get one (but only in practice, not quite legally recognized as one). I see nothing wrong with bringing up EEE before it happens. Which scenario is more likel…

GitHub’s danger is that it is centralized, not that it is closed source. For example, npm is already open source and Microsoft owning it is still a threat to the ecosystem via their ability to control the software and decide what goes in and what does not. Microsoft could open source GitHub and it wouldn’t make one bit of difference to their strategy, as it would not pose any danger to GitHub’s defaultness. Gitea imp…

Centralization is indeed a danger, but so is being proprietary. It would show some good will or otherwise willingness to avoid temptation if Microsoft freed the GitHub codebase even while staying centralized.

Freeing the code is a check-and-balance issue. It doesn't remove their core power, but it provides more of an escape hatch if they abuse the power. Sure, people could go to GitLab, but (A) if GitHub gets strong enough, they could hurt GitLab's business and progress and (B) it's a much more trivial move for a project to switch from Microsoft GitHub to an alternate GitHub host.

In other words, the easier it is for people to leave, the more incentive Microsoft has not to abuse people too much.

If we were going to go for the most ethical and trustworthy directions, it would probably be stuff like Fossil or SourceHut.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#642

Post by Nullabillity »

zaat wrote: post #432
Nullabillity wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you actually believe this was the reason behind developing Docker wrapper for VS? I mean you can always try stretching out the worst intention and motives, but do you actually believe this? I don't think there is an explicit conspiracy. I do think there is a negative spiral where IDE addicts (for the lack of a better term) produce tools that "help" others avoid leaving their comfort zone. I'm not immune to it ei…

> I do think there is a negative spiral where IDE addicts (for the lack of a better term) produce tools that "help" others avoid leaving their comfort zone. Alternatively, many people see value in focusing on what they develop and not have to bother studying the fine details of the underlying platforms they use. As someone who live deep down in detail and assist others using tools in the whole range from IDEs to cli,…

> Docker wasn't developed as a manifestation of free speech

Docker was developed because a cloud provider (Dotcloud) wanted a better way to package their own and their customers' software. As it turned out, Docker was succesful while Dotcloud failed spectacularly. So Docker became the main product.. and now that failed too, as of a few months ago.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#643

Post by zaat »

Nullabillity wrote: post #642
zaat wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do think there is a negative spiral where IDE addicts (for the lack of a better term) produce tools that "help" others avoid leaving their comfort zone. Alternatively, many people see value in focusing on what they develop and not have to bother studying the fine details of the underlying platforms they use. As someone who live deep down in detail and assist others using tools in the whole range from IDEs to cli,…

> Docker wasn't developed as a manifestation of free speech Docker was developed because a cloud provider (Dotcloud) wanted a better way to package their own and their customers' software. As it turned out, Docker was succesful while Dotcloud failed spectacularly. So Docker became the main product.. and now that failed too, as of a few months ago.

In short, Docker's development was payed for by a company for commercial purposes. Moreover, it was build as an abstraction over kernel features so that developers won't need learn anything about them. It's success is product of the fact that tools can create extremely useful abstractions and when they do people benefit from using them and depends on them.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#644

Post by franga2000 »

hiram112 wrote: post #509
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> can alienate an otherwise profitable market segment How are you going to alienate/lose customers by not getting rid of customers? If anything, I'd argue the opposite; a platform that refuses to ban legal content is one that I find easier to trust (for a counterexample, see Google). It's not even like github-like companies are social networks where you can claim that one user's experience of the platform is made wor…

We all know that the most vocal on the left, who want to silence anyone who doesn't pander to their political ideals, pressure public companies, advertisers, etc. to 'cancel' those who refuse to go along - drop their advertising, cut off their servers, purge their DNS, ban their accounts, shame them relentlessly until they disappear. Most US companies these days have no morals, and are easily influenced by these tact…

Why do people always feel the need to bring "the left" into this? Wanting to silence people who disagree with you has nothing to do with either the original definition of "left" or the parties considered "left" these days.

The same kinds of "censorship" that you talk about coming from "the left" can be found in extreme parts of every ideology. Conservatives (probably of the rich and christian variety) have pushed many platforms to completely remove all even slightly adult content (the latest example being Tumblr), all sides of the political spectrum have been pressuring sites like YouTube to the point where no political discussion from any side can be monetized...

This is not an issue of political sides - it's an issue of politics (and society) in general.

As for the part about companies not knowing about the people who don't approve of this behaviour: they do. They know exactly how many of us there are: not enough. Losing even a single big investor will make a company lose more money than if everyone who disagreed with them completely stopped using their services.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#645

Post by nrr »

hiram112 wrote: post #509
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> can alienate an otherwise profitable market segment How are you going to alienate/lose customers by not getting rid of customers? If anything, I'd argue the opposite; a platform that refuses to ban legal content is one that I find easier to trust (for a counterexample, see Google). It's not even like github-like companies are social networks where you can claim that one user's experience of the platform is made wor…

We all know that the most vocal on the left, who want to silence anyone who doesn't pander to their political ideals, pressure public companies, advertisers, etc. to 'cancel' those who refuse to go along - drop their advertising, cut off their servers, purge their DNS, ban their accounts, shame them relentlessly until they disappear. Most US companies these days have no morals, and are easily influenced by these tact…

You aren't the customers in this situation. For every 10,000 of you who don't pay even pay GitHub the $7/mo for a subscription, there's a 3000-seat behemoth who pays $70k/mo for a GitHub Enterprise license.

You're principled minnows to that one profitable shark.

These companies understand profit, and that's where they derive their morality. I'd say it's probably more accurate that most US companies simply don't share your morals, not that they don't have morals at all.

Follow the money. This is a much more useful lens to analyze the situation than to consider the left/right political spectrum.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#646

Post by ss3000 »

sequoia wrote: post #624
ss3000 wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain what happened to Atom development? I've seen numerous posts noting the sharp decline in contribution soon after the acquisition was announced. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22601451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21142934 Without an official explanation, given the timing, it'd be reasonable to assume you pulled development resources away from it, the exact thing you actually went on Reddi…

This is the second time I've seen a comment from you complaining about Atom development when an unrelated Github article is posted. What's the purpose of these posts? Do you expect Github to start funding active development of Atom again? If not, what's the goal of the complaints? I.e. why do you keep bringing this up if you know this is water under the bridge? I'm a github user, though I wouldn't call myself a fan e…

Um... I think you might have me confused with someone else?

I looked through my own post history and it looks like I did reply in a thread about this topic a while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22606843

(same thread that I linked above)

I can only speak for myself as to why I posted here. And I really just want an answer for the question I posted (I'm not naive enough to believe a post like this has any chance of changing project priorities at a megacorp). I wrote about this in a bit more detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22875388

And judging from the upvotes, a decent number of people want the same question answered. If you don't care about the answer, my recommendation would be to simply collapse the thread, downvote if you must, and move on.

I'm honestly puzzled as to why so many people seem to be actually offended by the very fact that I'm asking the question, and even seem to be taking it somewhat personally, even though it's not directed at anyone other than the OP.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#647

Post by wackget »

natfriedman wrote: post #26

Hi HN, I'm the CEO of GitHub. Everyone at GitHub is really excited about this announcement, and I'm happy to answer any questions. We've wanted to make this change for the last 18 months, but needed our Enterprise business to be big enough to enable the free use of GitHub by the rest of the world. I'm happy to say that it's grown dramatically in the last year, and so we're able to make GitHub free for teams that don'…

Are you aware that GitHub users still can't sort their repositories into folders?

Because that's definitely one reason why some developers still don't use GitHub.

Take a look at this request which has been open for years and remains unfulfilled:

https://github.com/dear-github/dear-github/issues/74

Is there a reason that such incredibly basic functionality doesn't exist on GitHub but does on all your competitors' offerings?

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#648

Post by lsh »

ss3000 wrote: post #646
sequoia wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the second time I've seen a comment from you complaining about Atom development when an unrelated Github article is posted. What's the purpose of these posts? Do you expect Github to start funding active development of Atom again? If not, what's the goal of the complaints? I.e. why do you keep bringing this up if you know this is water under the bridge? I'm a github user, though I wouldn't call myself a fan e…

Um... I think you might have me confused with someone else? I looked through my own post history and it looks like I did reply in a thread about this topic a while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22606843 (same thread that I linked above) I can only speak for myself as to why I posted here. And I really just want an answer for the question I posted (I'm not naive enough to believe a post like this has any c…

> I'm honestly puzzled as to why so many people seem to be actually offended by the very fact that I'm asking the question

Comment quality and civility has dropped in the last few months.

I don't use or even like Atom but if this natfriedman says it will be continue to be supported post-merger, then it isn't, then he needs to clear the air.

Re: GitHub is now free for teams

#649

Post by weq »

ciwchris wrote: post #473
natfriedman wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both products have a bright future and millions of users, and so we're continuing to invest in both for the foreseeable future. We're also finding ways to improve integration between them, so people can use them together if they want to. GitHub Actions reuses a bunch of code from Pipelines under the hood, for example.

After listening to episode 321 of The Azure Podcast[0] my understanding was that Azure DevOps would eventually be phased out; question begins at ~10:30 and at about ~12:00 a rough timeline of 5 years was given with guidance to select GitHub if just starting out. 0: http://azpodcast.azurewebsites.net/post/Episode-321-GitHub

The writing is on the wall... TFS is going the way of Silverlight.
Post reply on HN