1. 70
  1.  

  2. 24

    With all the talk of GitHub private repos being free… I’ll suggest something even better!

    Check out sr.ht -> https://sr.ht

    It’s actually 100% open source software, and there’s no tracking or advertising. (Even no JS) I think it’s still in the alpha phase, so you can get an account for free there too. Using sr.ht will support OSS more than using GitHub, and will fight the current situation the world is in where a few large corps control everyone’s data.

    Also… GitHub does a great job of being open with who they share your data with. Unfortunately, Google (and others) are on the list: https://help.github.com/articles/github-subprocessors-and-cookies/

    1. 6

      <3

      Special shoutout to all of the Lobsters users who helped test during the private alpha, too :)

      1. 1

        This is cool. One question though: how am I supposed to pronounce sr.ht? I can’t imagine telling someone about this service without having to spell it out, and I bet you that I’m immediately going to forget that name.

        It might seem like a trivial point but I feel like it could be a real barrier to success.

        1. 1

          As far as pronunciation goes, I think @SirCmpwn says it like ‘sir hat’. I just say the letters like an acronym, but maybe that’s wrong. I guess it’s ambiguous?

          Regarding the barrier to success portion of your comment, it’s a fair point; maybe @SirCmpwn can chime in on it. However, I hope that it won’t be a barrier. There are definitely other companies with names that are pronounced differently depending on who you ask (ex: Asus).

      2. 15

        Welp, guess Github just lost my business

        (because the one thing I was paying for is now free)

        1. 13

          I’d wager that most of GitHub’s income comes from companies who host their stuff there.

          I just checked, and we pay $1,182/month to GitHub. The few people that had $7/month subscription probably isn’t really worth it, as private repos are free on a number of other providers.

          In the long run, it might even be beneficial for GitHub’s income, as the more people that use GitHub for their personal stuff, the more likely they’ll be to use/recommend it for their business, too. Atlassian does something similar with their pricing for most products: it’s very cheap for small teams (<10 people), and then a massive price-hike if you’ve got more people.

          1. 5

            Most of GitHub’s income comes from enterprise users. This is generally true of every company with an enterprise offering, but we know it from a 2016 Bloomberg article (analysis). It’s reasonable to estimate GitHub’s personal plan was a single-digit percent of its revenue and only marginally profitable because of support.

          2. 5

            Usually works out the other way. That’s funny.

            1. 4

              Maybe it will work the other way around: Everyone moves to MSGithub now, and next year they start charging for private repos. :-)

              1. 7

                But everyone (basically) is already on MSGitHub. If anything this seems like an attempt to build goodwill. Maybe they’re a little concerned about the growth of alternatives as well. But I doubt they were making very much off of individuals paying for five private repos. The big money is in the corporate contracts.

                1. 1

                  Good thinking. :)

            2. 14

              It’s almost like increased pressure from competitors like GitLab or BitBucket is forcing GitHub to improve their product.

              1. 9

                GitHub is a wonderful product. It’s incredibly well designed despite the complicated nature of the workflows it supports. The fact that the app is still usable and perfomant with JS disabled is a significant achievement. I do worry that they will go the way of JIRA and come out with some fashionable but low-usability react-based modal-everywhere redesign. That would be unfortunate.

                1. 12

                  the app is still usable with JS disabled

                  Indeed! Now if only it would be usable with JS enabled; that would sure be nice.

                  (The way the JS in their comment forms intercept common readline-based and emacs-based shortcuts and replace them with useless markdown formatting functions is so annoying I had to blacklist their JS.)

                2. 17

                  I’ll stick to gitlab, new exciting features coming out every month. I can self host. I love gitlab’s CI system that is built in as well. I can now do chatops easily with mattermost.

                  1. 16

                    An important reason I use GitHub is for the “network effect”. Everyone and their dog is on GitHub, so it’s just practical.

                    If I had my say, I’d still be using mercurial and BitBucket. But at some point someone “forked” my repo by converting it to git and uploading it to GitHub with their fix (I found out accidentally a year later), so then I decided to just migrate my stuff to GitHub.

                    Especially for my personal stuff, the differences between GitHub, GitLab, BitBucket, etc. aren’t large enough to warrant losing sleep over, so I just opt for the most practical solution.

                    1. 5

                      I use Gitlab at work where it was kind of a hassle to deal with in the beginning but since about 1.5 years it became a great product which I really like to use. As you already said, the integrated CI system is great if not the best I’ve ever used. We also have some Mattermost integrations for chatops which were straightforward to setup.

                      1. 4

                        Has its performance gotten better? Every time I’ve tried gitlab its performance and hardware resource requirements have been a blocker.

                        1. 4

                          With limited hardware resources I would recommend something like gitea. Gitlab is running on a beefy machine at work so performance is not a problem.

                          1. 1

                            I’d love to see a gitea for mercurial.

                            1. 2

                              For Mercurial, Both Kallithea and RhodeCode can run fine on a box with 1CPU and 1GB of ram not even needing database installed as they could run on SQLite.

                      2. 3

                        I also use GitLab and I’m content with its CI, or I was until recently. but I find it confusing, and more than version control and CI, it aims to become an all-in-one solution much like Azure Devops (Formerly Microsoft Team Foundation Services).

                        I understand that this is a strategic goal for them, they develop in that direction, I’m okay with it.

                        As a user I have not logged in for a few months, log in, create a new project to get a CI pipeline, and I’m overwhelmed with UI changes, something something Kubernetes… complexity and unneded feature relatd changes and options everywhere. I1m not their target audience anymore, and they may loose me very soon, as I don’t have the resources to re-learn their platform every few months to be able to disable unneeded features.

                        1. 3

                          I can understand your frustration they do through a lot of new features at you. Personally I’m a sysadmin that also writes a lot of code. My sysadmin side gets excited with all the new features that are built into a nice contained solution for us.

                      3. 6

                        This sounds like a great feature!

                        I use GitHub for 2 reasons - to share code publicly (mostly Advent of Code stuff) and to use version control for more “private” stuff - my blog, dotfiles etc.

                        Being able to set some stuff private is a win for me.

                        (Some organisations, like Project Euler, really don’t like when code for the puzzles are public. Being able to set that repo as private might prevent being banned from participating in the future).

                        As to why this is being rolled out, I suspect it’s because it’s been hard for some developers to introduce GitHub at their place of work because it’s tough to get a PO to pay, but you can’t really have corporate stuff publicly available. A free private tier allows for “stealth onboarding” (viz Slack).

                        As to whether this will lead to interesting stuff being hidden away - there’s a lot of crap on GitHub. Someone’s random .dotfile collection, without an interesting README, might contain hidden gems, but are you really going to stumble upon it by chance? If anything, these private repos will “clean up” a lot of chaff, leaving the open projects that are actually interesting to a wider audience.

                        1. 9

                          Bit too late for me. Doing wonderfully with Keybase git for private repos.

                          1. 5

                            Indeed. I don’t understand the appeal for private repos that aren’t also private to the host. I won’t be using them even though they’re free.

                            1. 1

                              Are such repos as easy for people to start using as the gitlab way?

                              1. 1

                                It’s really easy to use, but does not compare to gitlab in terms of features. But since I just need secure, distributed place to access my repos, it’s a good match.

                            2. 3

                              So what’s the catch?

                              1. 18

                                Max 3 collaborators on free private repos.

                                1. 29

                                  You have to use GitHub.

                                  1. 4

                                    I think it is OK as long as you don’t use their “value add” features like issues and just use it as a git remote.

                                    Edit: Unlimited free repositories are limited to three collaborators.

                                    GitHub Free gives you unlimited private repositories with up to three collaborators per repository at no cost—and continued access to unlimited public repositories with unlimited collaborators.

                                2. 4

                                  There goes BitBucket’s edge (if you don’t consider Mercurial better ;-))

                                  1. 4

                                    Interesting. Could this have a damaging effect on open, free software available to us?

                                    1. 9

                                      Why would it have a damaging effect? Are you supposing that there are a lot of useful FOSS projects out there that are public only because their owners didn’t want to pay GitHub five dollars a month?

                                      1. 6

                                        They already push the agenda that you probably don’t want your side project or interview assessment to be public. I think that there could be projects locked away as they are not ‘ready’. Hackers won’t be able to learn from things they cannot see!

                                        Slippery slope argument in there somewhere… I’m more interested to see how they tie this product in to LinkedIn.

                                        1. 2

                                          From what I’ve seen of GitHub, that seems like a fairly reasonable supposition, especially if you leave out the FOSS ideology and just consider publicly accessible projects. More user control over privacy will definitely (as in “by definition”) result in less public access.

                                          1. 2

                                            Are you supposing that there are a lot of useful FOSS projects out there that are public only because their owners didn’t want to pay GitHub five dollars a month?

                                            Actually, yeah. A lot of cool repositories have a single commit, and were pushed to one time anywhere from 1-7 years ago. They’re super useful, but I can see people making that kind of repository private now that it’s free.

                                        2. 4

                                          I’m not a fan of this change actually. I suspect that this will result in a thousand thousand repositories with useful bits of code to be read and re-used will go dark.

                                          That’s a shame.

                                          1. 8

                                            I stopped using GitHub years ago because I couldn’t have private repos for free. I’m sure most people who want to have private repos already do somewhere else.

                                            1. 7

                                              A lot of those repositories didn’t have licenses and so using that code would be dubious from a legal standing. If it did have a license then it is likely the author wouldn’t have made it private.

                                              1. 1

                                                but you can still read unlicensed code and heavily lean on it while “rewriting” it.

                                                1. 1

                                                  Still seems legally dubious. According to Harvard Law School’s Copyright Basics, that is copyright infringement. Specifically:

                                                  1. create a new work derived from the original work (for example, by translating the work into a new language, by copying and distorting the image, or by transferring the work into a new medium of expression)
                                                  1. 3

                                                    legally dubious but impossible to actually get sued for

                                                    1. 1

                                                      Legally dubious, morally wrong.

                                                      1. 1

                                                        there is no moral basis for copyright

                                                        1. 1

                                                          Does a person not have a right to the product of their work?

                                                          1. 1

                                                            yes, nobody should take their code away from them

                                                            1. 1

                                                              With a right to the product of your labor, you have the right to keep control of the direct product of your labor.

                                                              1. 1

                                                                true, nobody can force you to put your code on github

                                                                1. 1

                                                                  So you think once you share something in any way, you lose all moral rights to that work?

                                                                  1. 1

                                                                    having exclusive dominion over an idea has no more legitimacy than having exclusive dominion over a plot of land. we might decide that certain rules are for the good of society, but if those rules are idiotic you have no moral obligation to follow them.

                                                                    1. 1

                                                                      So you can have exclusive dominion over a chair you make, but not a website you build? What about a song you perform?

                                                                      1. 1

                                                                        having a degree of personal property is a sensible rule, so it would be wrong to steal someones chair in most cases. preventing people from making copies of something at no cost to you crosses the line into unjust power. copyright laws were never justified on the basis of morality: it was always justified on the basis that it would incentivise the creation of new works. maybe a 10 year copyright on books makes sense as a way to incentivize publishers to produce hard copies of a book, but that’s not a question of morality.

                                                                        this is a good lecture: https://archive.org/details/Dr.RichardStallmanCopyrightVs.Community

                                                                        1. 1

                                                                          So you think that once you record a song with the purpose of selling it, there are no moral problems with someone else coming along and sharing it for free?

                                                                          1. 1

                                                                            of course not, why would there be

                                                                            1. 1

                                                                              Because the creator expects as a term of his creation that he will derive benefit in the form of money from his effort. Therefore by copying without permission, you are stealing what was no less a product than a chair.

                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                so the injury is done when someone forms an unreasonable expectation. maybe if someone reads this thread they will be saved from that :)

                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                  There is a natural right to property, so it’s not unreasonable.

                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                    no there isn’t and yes it is

                                                                                    1. 2

                                                                                      I’m sorry, I simply believe in the right to property, including intellectual, and the right to things you produce, even if the cost of copying is closer to zero than ever before.

                                                                                      1. 0

                                                                                        do i have a right to prevent you from wearing your hair like mine?

                                                                                        1. 1

                                                                                          I don’t know anything about hair. I just wash it. There is some hair soap thing involved. That’s it. So I can’t answer your question.

                                                                                          1. 1

                                                                                            oh okay

                                                                                      2. 1

                                                                                        Partly I do believe that you have a right to your labor, not just the product of your labor. Thus you have a right to your music video, even if the copying of that music video is free. You have a right to your code, even if it’s on github. You are morally in the wrong if you steal, even when that stealing doesn’t detract from the original work at all.

                                                                                        The natural right of property by the way emerged in the medieval period, and is the basis of all modern civilizations. It is the reason we have the capabilities we have today, and without it, the world would be in a worse place.

                                                                                        1. -1

                                                                                          wanna know why else we have the capabilities we have today? slavery.

                                              2. 5

                                                Too little, too late.

                                                1. 4

                                                  For who? To what other repository hosting service have individual developers been moving en masse?

                                                  1. 9

                                                    I don’t know about “en masse”, but GitLab has certainly been getting a lot of attention lately.

                                                    1. 6

                                                      This. Ever since Microsoft bought GitHub I see more and more projects moving over.

                                                2. 4

                                                  I’ll stick to gitlab, new exciting features coming out every month. I can self host. I love gitlab’s CI system that is built in as well. I can now do chatops easily with mattermost.

                                                  1. 2

                                                    This isn’t the case yet. According to the bottom of https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/07/github-free-users-now-get-unlimited-private-repositories/ it’s from tomorrow and there was a broken embargo on this.

                                                    1. 2

                                                      Does Microsoft’s ML code analysis read public repos only, or private ones as well? I assume both..

                                                      1. 6

                                                        If you’re referring to GitHub’s code analysis (there’s been no MS involvement with that so far), then you need to opt-in for private repos, on the repository settings page. (screenshot)

                                                        1. 2

                                                          “read-only analysis” as opposed to “read-write analysis”? Is there really such thing?

                                                          1. 2

                                                            Maybe some users raised concern that enabling the code analysis might drop JSON files in their repository? I don’t know, but in general we like to make it pretty clear what the scope of permission being granted is, and RO/RW is an important distinction.