Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
If you’re a GitHub user, but you don’t pay, this is a good week. Historically, GitHub always offered free accounts but the caveat was that your code had to be public. To get private repositories, you had to pay. Starting tomorrow, that limitation is gone. Free GitHub users now get unlimited private projects with up to three collaborators.
The amount of collaborators is really the only limitation here and there’s no change to how the service handles public repositories, which can still have unlimited collaborators.
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. Some developers were rather nervous about the acquisition (though it feels like most have come to terms with it). It’s also a fair guess to assume that GitHub’s model for monetizing the service is a bit different from Microsoft’s. Microsoft doesn’t need to try to get money from small teams — that’s not where the bulk of its revenue comes from. Instead, the company is mostly interested in getting large enterprises to use the service.
Source: https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/07/github-free-users-now-get-unlimited-private-repositories/
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Wednesday January 09 2019, @03:08AM (5 children)
With GitLab, I use private repos for storing more than code. Stuff like living documents that I want version control on or I need access through a web browser. While I'm not going to migrate from GitLab to GitHub, GitHub offering unlimited private repos allows me to suggest this workflow to a wider audience, thanks to GitHub's popularity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 09 2019, @07:16AM (1 child)
Why not just host your code on Google docs?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 09 2019, @08:30AM
I have one better - just use Gmail, one mail per file.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 09 2019, @01:37PM (2 children)
My only concern for this "free" service is: "free" for how long?
I'd rather not train myself to a specific workflow that's going to go away on me at some unexpected future date.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Wednesday January 09 2019, @07:24PM (1 child)
This one of the reasons I advise GitLab: if GitLab's policies change you can migrate to a personally hosted server. GitHub is not open source, but you still could migrate your files to a new git service.
While I self-host a lot, I keep re-learning I'm not a good system admin. Hosting on a professional site with a backout strategy is my new BKM for web services.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 09 2019, @10:59PM
Same here. What I expect next is the "extend" phase where GitHub starts sprouting non-standard git features that integrate with free Visual Studio... As long as you don't stray into the non-standard workflows, there's not actually any such thing as a git server, "git" servers just store and retrieve files for the client through (a number of) standard file transfer interfaces.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by SpockLogic on Wednesday January 09 2019, @03:19AM (5 children)
The phrase "Beware Geeks bearing gifts", or something like that, comes to mind.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 09 2019, @01:42PM (3 children)
They let Windows be pirated easily (almost the same as free) for 15 years...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Wednesday January 09 2019, @02:01PM (2 children)
By omitting the ‘Arrr!’ I thought we could avoid comments on piracy.
Ducks.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 09 2019, @03:18PM (1 child)
Interesting question, though - if these are truly free and private git repositories, can they be used to host warez without fear of prosecution (as long as the password is only shared among trusted sharers...)?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 01 2019, @10:13AM
which gives MS a good excuse to proceed to the extinguish phase.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 09 2019, @07:03PM
The phrase "Beware Cops bearing gifts", or something like that, comes to mind.
There, FTFY.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by requerdanos on Wednesday January 09 2019, @03:24AM (2 children)
Up to three. This number will come up shortly; for now, let's just note it.
Small teams get free unlimited private projects. Large enterprises, like, for example, the four broke, clueless guys in the garage at the beginning of the film Primer, are the only ones who have to pay instead of enjoy Microsoft's goodwill.
I will say that if you are interested in such a thing, that it's nice that the restrictions are slightly relaxed. But let's not wax idiotic.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday January 09 2019, @07:33PM (1 child)
Actually, the owner plus three collaborators makes four. If you want to reenact said movie, Microsoft is rooting for you!
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday January 09 2019, @10:29PM
I didn't know, and appreciate your correction.
In fact, that makes it all better. Only if Mrs. Abe and Mrs Aaron were included would they be a "Large Enterprise".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 09 2019, @04:17AM (6 children)
OK, so let's say you're some sort of independent developer, and you put some stuff in a private repo. And that means the general public doesn't have access to your stuff. So far so good.
But guess who does have access to your stuff? Microsoft. Which is a bit of a problem if you're developing something that could potentially compete with Microsoft.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 09 2019, @01:44PM (1 child)
Is there a good encryption wrapper solution for git yet?
Would seem to be fairly easy to keep the local repo "in the clear" for all your tools to work with, while cloud hosted copy is obfuscated with cryptographic key.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Thursday January 10 2019, @12:32AM
I do not believe that would be possible - at least for your stated use-case.
Git (and similar) work by keeping a collection of differences between versions. For instance: if version one is "the cat sat on the mat" and version two is "the dog sat on the mat", your repository really only has to remember the original version and "replace with 'dog', at character 5".
Whilst git happily allows storage of binary data (it might even be an encrypted representation of something else), there is no advantage conferred by using a source control system other than as a pure repository for a chunk of binary data. The "diffs" would be meaningless.
(Remember that the encrypted version of "the cat sat on the mat" and "the dog sat on the mat" likely differ at each bit position, so there is no space saving either.)
If one wanted to keep the advantages of git (above and beyond a pure repository of BLOBs [binary large objects]) the THE SERVER NEEDS TO HOLD THE ENCRYPTION KEYS, which kind of defeats the whole purpose. Let me just restate that for clarity: unless the server can decrypt the data (for which it needs the keys), it can not do any of that "source control magic".
So: 1) git already allows encrypted transport; 2) if you want to store a project - encrypted - on the cloud - you'd be better off using a versioning filesystem rather than something designed for working with source code.
You are already on track with your original idea: keep your repository local and regularly run "git bundle", encrypt the resulting file using PGP, and upload the result.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday January 09 2019, @07:36PM (3 children)
Read the terms of service, GitHub/Microsoft don't own your code. If companies weren't afraid of violating copyright on software, they wouldn't be using clean room techniques when developing software to avoid to possibility of copyright infringement (rumors about Uber notwithstanding).
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 09 2019, @08:09PM (1 child)
I know they don't own your code, but they sure as heck can read it, and even if they don't violate copyright by simply taking your code and compiling it, they can violate any trade secrets locked up in that code and as long as they keep the fact that they used your algorithms secret from you they can get away with it scot-free.
That' why I advocate setting up your own git repo if you're doing anything important: It's not hard, and will probably do a better job of protecting your code.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Friday January 11 2019, @02:07AM
I doubt Microsoft would want the risk of reading their customers' code. If there's even the suspicion that Microsoft stole some code, all they have to do is go to discovery and "Whoops, in the logs here say employee X looked at these guy's code". That's not going to look good in court (and "losing" the logs doesn't look good in court either). They don't even need to prove that the code is copied, the plaintiff can just claim MS's code is "heavily inspired" by their code.
That's why clean room techniques exists. You cannot allow your devs to even glance at any potentially similar code without raising questions about copyright ownership.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Wednesday January 09 2019, @08:19PM
Let's assume that you make something really really good.
Microsoft steals it.
Who is going to win, the lawyers you can afford or the lawyers Microsoft can afford?
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 09 2019, @04:24AM
Their earch within repo function has started to fail at detecting exact matches for function names that have been in the same file for years.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jb on Wednesday January 09 2019, @04:47AM (4 children)
By making it cheaper for tiny groups to keep their source code secret, Microsoft are of course encouraging young programmers to keep their source code secret.
By doing so, they seek to recruit a whole new generation of programmer to help them perpetuate the myth that "secret source" is somehow an acceptable software development model (a myth the widespread belief in which has helped Microsoft make almost all of their money to date).
(Score: 2, Touché) by xvan on Wednesday January 09 2019, @06:03AM (1 child)
Or you could take off your tin foil hat, and realize they are just catching up with bitbucket and gitlab free offerings
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday January 09 2019, @08:33AM
Why not both? (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 09 2019, @01:47PM (1 child)
Of course it's "acceptable" - whether or not it is optimal in terms of product quality, cost, or profitability is an ever-changing analysis highly dependent on the individual project's circumstances.
For tiny teams, yeah, closed source doesn't seem all that great based on the last 30 years' history, but it's perfectly acceptable.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 09 2019, @06:53PM
Greeks or Trojans? It's a question of personal preference...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 09 2019, @01:16PM (1 child)
I had to laugh at the idea of corporate benevolence knowing that offering free private repos is a key distinction for quite a few git-hosting firms. Thus this nicety will likely thin out that market. That was an easy win for them.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 09 2019, @01:50PM
I have to agree with the above tinfoil hats: this seems to be more of a mind-share play to perpetuate the widespread practice of closed source coding.
🌻🌻 [google.com]