GitHub Is Now Free For All Teams (techcrunch.com) 30
GitHub today announced that all of its core features are now available for free to all users, including those that are currently on free accounts. TechCrunch reports: That means free unlimited private repositories with unlimited collaborators for all, including teams that use the service for commercial projects, as well as up to 2,000 minutes per month of free access to GitHub Actions, the company's automation and CI/CD platform. Teams that want more advanced features like code owners or enterprise features like SAML support will still have to upgrade to a paid plan, but those now start at $4 per month and user for the Teams plans instead of the previous $9, with the Enterprise plan starting at $21 per month and user.
Natalie Portman, naked and petrified... (Score:2)
...and covered in hot git
with free data mineing (Score:2)
with free data mineing
Re: (Score:1)
mineing
I hope you're jokeing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If "onboarding" is a word, "mineing" is as well. In fact, I think it's my new favourite. I might just mine it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The provided content is free that fills in around the paying ads.
Free content people come back again and again.
Free is the part that attracts users to a brand.
The ads follow that herd of users.
Re: (Score:3)
GitLab was already free, seems to lead Github in features, and just looks less dated. This looks more like Microsoft trying to keep their expensive acquisition relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
GitLab doesn't allow you to have binaries attached to releases. The file size limit is so low as to make it effectively useless. GitHub and SourceForge will distribute your large binaries for you. That makes it impossible to move e.g. MAME to GitLab without finding another way to deal with the download traffic.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about hosting a volunteer Free Software/Open Source project with minimal cost. GitHub and SourceForce allow one to distribute large binaries, either by attaching them to releases (GitHub) or via FRS (SourceForge). GitLab doesn't. Sure, we could host GitLab ourselves, but could be costly when we're getting tens of thousands of downloads of the 75MB Windows binary package every week (as well as all the source code clones). It's easier to let GitHub and SourceForge pick up the bill for the traf
Re: (Score:2)
VPS from OVH with 20GB of SSD storage, 100Mbps internet connection and no data caps costs 5eur/month. So running your own gitlab whatnot is almost free nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
The main issue with both of them is that they lack a decent way to organize your repos. Gitlab has some basic stuff but it really is the absolute minimum they could do.
When Github was asked to improve it (before MS bought them) their answer was that most users only have 3 repos so it's not worth supporting people who actually use their product every day or for business.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you want to organize your repos? I'm curious because while I've used GitHub a couple of times, I don't much care for any of the Web-ified git repository solutions. My one concession is to use gitolite for repos that have multiple users to handle access control, but otherwise I stick to the command line. Therefore my "organization" is just plain old Unix directory structure.
Re: (Score:2)
Tags would be nice, or folders, or preferably both.
Their desktop client has the same annoying issue, especially when you have both personal and work repos in there.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Basic folders to organize things doesn't seem like it would be so difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
GitLab enterprise allows you to organize related repos (e.g. modules of a larger project) into groups [gitlab.com]. You can set access restrictions by group as well as nesting groups. Hopefully it will eventually trickle down to the free version, especially if Github is ramping up the competition.
Re:a cynics take... (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly any company that offers a better service at a lower price is plotting to drive their competitors out of business then raise prices to a monopolist level afterwards. No wait, offering better value is just capitalism 101. I'm willing to entertain the idea that this a price dumping or EEE strategy, but it seems like you're starting out with the premise that Microsoft is evil (everything they do is a trap) and stupid (because the trap won't work) and working your way backwards instead of making any compelling arguments in favor of this interpretation. And the same goes for acting like Microsoft has any real choice in complying with US law or not, they didn't create the ITAR regulations but are bound to follow them even when the implications are silly.
Re: (Score:3)
No wait, offering better value is just capitalism 101.
No it's not. Monopolies are capitalism 101 - it's not only the most profitable state but the natural end point of any free market (although a cartel might stall the arrival at that point for a while). "Better value" is certainly one possible way to get to the desired monopoly state but it's not an objective in itself, in fact once you have your monopoly it's irrational to offer better value.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not. Monopolies are capitalism 101 - it's not only the most profitable state but the natural end point of any free market
The first thing they teach you about is perfect competition, where there's no barriers to entry, no benefits of scale, perfect information, zero transaction costs, zero customer loyalty etc. and any time you could turn a profit a competitor will jump in and undercut you so there's none. Then they start explaining all the ways that is fiction. By the time you come as far as degenerate markets like a monopoly you're deep into one little sub-branch because most companies will never be in such a market. You thi
Re: (Score:3)
but it seems like you're starting out with the premise that Microsoft is evil (everything they do is a trap) and stupid (because the trap won't work) and working your way backwards instead of making any compelling arguments in favor of this interpretation.
Yes, the OP is doing that. It is textbook "begging the question."
Re: (Score:2)
For it to be Embrace Extend Extinguish wouldn't they have to extend it? Github hasn't extended git at all.
You seem to be confusing that with just normal competition where companies try to offer features that customers want. Microsoft has been doing this for years, giving away versions of Visual Studio and more recently open sourcing VS Code and .NET.
That's how you get customers in 2020. If you want your platform to be popular you had better foster a community around it, and then people will use it in a comm
Re: (Score:2)
I for one am happy to take advantage of all this freeness, regardless of Microsoft's motives behind it.
Normal (Score:4, Interesting)
Anybody remember when only the most special YouTube accounts could upload more than 10 minutes of video?
It's actually very normal for a competitive product to trickle features down to free accounts while adding more paid features at the top.
Normal requires no conspiracy, k?
Until recently MS has based this on skin colour (Score:1)
And more to the point, after MS demonstrated so gracefully how it is anything but a neutral platform as they had originally stated when they purchased (read: hostile take-over) Github, why is anyone still using it?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
NOT free! (Score:2)
The servers cost money in any case.
Who's gonna pay for them? You or you unknowingly?