Announcing unlimited free private repos - <AUTHOR> https://blog.github.com/2019-01-07-new-year-new-github/ <comment><USER2> A lot of people are concerned about the "what if they make me the product since I'm no longer paying."

A few reasons I don't think that will happen:

\- private, single contributor repos tend to be pretty small. it costs Github very little to service a single account.

\- Github is a growing social network for developers. Getting young engineers on the platform for free will pay off handsomely when they join a team and automatically assume Github is their code storage tool of choice.

\- Microsoft gets the reputation points for running the de facto developer social network (other than Stack Overflow).

GitHub is in the strange position of being both a successful enterprise product AND a social network. What other product exists with that kind of crossover? Microsoft will continue to optimize their enterprise revenue from GH and I think this is a tremendous step forward toward building the network long term.

<comment><USER3> It is no surprise but sound business reason that private repos will be available for free.

For some background, check this HN classic: "Commoditize your complements" ([https://www.gwern.net/Complement#2](https://www.gwern.net/Complement#2))

<comment><USER4> Very interesting article. It could be argued that the webapps/internet/browsers are now doing the same to the OS. For casual uses any OS is the same.

<comment><USER5> Yes, Microsoft realized that long ago. Gates and Balmer prolonged the inevitable through monopoly power, but Nadella has accepted the future and is "turning the aircraft carrier."

It's amazing that Microsoft came back to life from being a zombie company. In hindsight, it was such a large zombie that it had sufficient time to change business models. Somehow Sears wasn't. There's a business school case study and tenure buried in there.

<comment><USER6> If by 'zombie company' you mean raking in massive amounts of money and growing spectacularly every year? [1]

MSFT has changed in some positive ways, but since Satya took over, growth has been actually flat-ish to negative overall until 2018 (a good year). Paradoxically, MSFT stock was flat during the Ballmer years when there was rock solid consistent growth.

The 'new MSFT' things is quite overrated in terms of what it really means for the company overall. We HN readers tend to considerably overvalue actions that might seem positive, such as things like open source contributions. MS VS Code is great, but it's not hugely material next to core business. Most of the world really does not care, and they are buying gadzooks worth of MSFT products and services. For better or worse.

[1] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/267805/microsofts- global...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/267805/microsofts-global- revenue-since-2002/)

<comment><USER7> When I last worked there and ballmer was running things, he thought he was doing great cause he got more money each year from stupid enterprise agreements with stupid companies. But the innovation was really slow and it was all about increasing the value of what they had, windows. The world was moving on without them.

Satya nadella made a surprising change for Microsoft. If a company is going to last long term they have to do more than look at their own navels. You can't just focus on squeezing more money out of your existing lemons.

Happening now at Apple?

<comment><USER8> Look, as an ex-MSFT person I'm only glad to see someone shit on Ballmer. I didn't like the guy myself. But the pillars of today's Microsoft success were all created by him. Azure? Ballmer. Subscription services (and Office 365 in particular)? Ballmer. XBOX? Ballmer. Satya gets _way_ too much credit for what Microsoft is today. I feel that's mostly because he looks better on stage, and that's a very low bar. A raging gorilla looks better on stage than Ballmer.

<comment><USER9> Can you show me that Ballmer created XBOX?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> While I think this is a great move, don't forget that private repos also means no more free Travis CI.

Gitlab CI however offers 2,000 build minutes a month with their integrated CI service.

Even if your whole set up takes 10 minutes to build on CI, that's 200 builds a month which is plenty for an individual project that's on a private repo.

In other words, I think Gitlab's free private repos + CI is still a better choice for a solo developer who wants private repos since CI is such a useful tool and other external CI services have much more limited free plans (to use with Github instead). Having everything in the same UI is also really useful, which is another win for Gitlab.

I prefer Github's UI for overall repo exploration and issues, etc.. but I'm not sure if I'll move my private repos over to Github now that's it free, because the repo itself is only 1 piece of the puzzle.

Microsoft also has a deep connection with Docker. It's kind of no surprise that Docker only has automated build support for GitHub and Bitbucket. Kind of a bummer, but with Gitlab CI you can get the same effect in the end.

<comment><USER11> Also, the best part about gitlab CI - it's super easy to install gitlab-runner on your own and enjoy unlimited build minutes, even on the free plan. Plus you get to set up your buildbot environment just the way you like - even with access to LAN-only resources in case you need them.

<comment><USER12> I hate to keep beating the dead horse-but you can do the same thing via MS's Visual Studio Devops aka Visual Studio Online with a local build/deployment agent.

<comment><USER13> And you can do the same thing with personal licenses of your chosen ci server and you can throw in a personal deployment server to boot (i like octopus).

I actually just use Appveyor if I can for my personal stuff.

<comment><USER12> And then I have to manage two more servers....

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> One of the best uses of GitHub is being able to search for some obscure framework method name or enum constant, and find examples of working code that uses it. This has saved my life many times when trying to figure out how to configure Java frameworks to interact with each other.

When searching for this kind of code, you have to wade through an awful lot of repos containing half-baked personal projects, experiments, unmodified clones of upstream frameworks, and barely-modified boilerplate examples. It would be nice if there was less of this detritus clogging up the search results.

However, sometimes the code you actually _want_ is embedded in some otherwise useless, half-baked personal project, or barely-modified boilerplate example. So if all these projects disappear behind a veil of privacy, maybe it won't be a net win.

<comment><USER15> Honest question: how do you make github search work for you? It often fails to find stuff that I _know_ exists in a given repo. Nothing fancy, even single- word full symbol names.

<comment><USER16> I've found usefull code snippets on github via google in the past.

<comment><USER17> How do you search for those exactly?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is a smart move.

Gives developers who have small indy projects a reason to use Github rather than a competitor (I know I use gitlab precisely because it's free for my private one-off repos).

<comment><USER19> My move to Gitlab was basically "come for the free repos, stay for the rest of the amazing features". I will not be moving off it, and my new repos will keep being on Gitlab.

<comment><USER20> What features of Gitlab do you prefer?

<comment><USER19> The integrated CI is amazing, the Docker registry is nice, the issue boards are great, the saner permission model (you can add multiple people as repository owners without putting them in a team), these are the things I can recall off the top of my head.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Competition in a free market is good, but in the presence of monopolies, it's a self-destructing concept.

TechCrunch wrote[0] "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." I believe it's more of a sign of an attempt to kill GitHub's rivals by hurting their revenue streams. As Aaron Levie, co-founder and chief executive of Box once said in 2014, "These guys will drive prices to zero, [...] you do not want to wait for Google or Amazon to keep cutting prices on you. 'Free' is not a business model."[1]

[0]: [https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/07/github-free-users-now- get-...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/07/github-free-users-now-get- unlimited-private-repositories/)

[1]: [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/technology/box-dropbox- an...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/technology/box-dropbox-and-hightail- pivot-to-new-business-models.html)

<comment><USER22> It's tough when your competition can give away their product and fund it through their bottomless pockets and money they make on other products.

I used to work for a great company in the developer tooling area, one of the big players came directly after us, ramped up a team, started copying our features and gave the product away for free. We were still doing well when I left, but it'll be interesting to see how it goes over the next few years.

<comment><USER23> This might be a naive comment, but isn't that predatory pricing. By dropping prices to zero and trying to purposely hurt your competitors, you effectively gain a monopoly on that industry.

<comment><USER24> Github's competitors are already providing the same service for free. Github is dropping their prices from $7 / mo to free to compete.

<comment><USER25> But they're not. They created a new, feature-reduced repo type to make free/private. The marketing hides this, and you need to dig to the "Comparison" section to see it:

[https://github.com/pricing#feature- comparison](https://github.com/pricing#feature-comparison)

<comment><USER24> Good point, it's not the exact same. But their new offering is much closer to what their competitors are offering, so I'd say it's still a move to try to better compete with the free offerings from other companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> For those of you using GitLab, BitBucket, or <insert-other-git-host- competitor-here>, does this make you consider switching back at all? If so, why?

It may be myopic, but the only major reason I can think of is visibility if you plan on publicizing the repo at some point. But you can achieve this by using GitHub as a mirror for your main repo on another platform (at least for GitLab, I'm not familiar with BitBucket).

Edit: Personally, I use GitLab (both .com and I've set up/maintain several sefl-hosted solutions). I originally tried out GitLab due to lack of private repos on GitHub, and I don't see a reason I should switch back at this point. The open development and attitude towards the product and community has been part of that.

<comment><USER27> Nope.

Github was always the go-to option and there was no reason to really even consider alternatives at first. People said "Bitbucket has free private repos!" for years and that was interesting but not compelling. Few users left Github because their competitors had free private repos.

Github got acquired, and that acquisition basically erased any and all user trust in Github as a company because they no longer control their own destiny. Instead we have to trust Microsoft. And that was a big enough shock for people to actually consider all of the competitors instead of just defaulting to Github like they did before.

To some extent, I suspect people paid for private repos from Github because they believed in supporting Github as a company and $7/mo isn't that much. Nobody believes in supporting Microsoft as a company. Microsoft charging for private repos is like Disney having a Patreon account.

<comment><USER28> > Nobody believes in supporting Microsoft as a company.

I believe Microsoft has been doing amazing things for developers the past few years.

<comment><USER27> Sure, but you're not going to give Microsoft money because you like them and want them to do well, and that was probably the main motivation behind paying for private repos. It was never purely a value proposition of, "private repos are worth $8/mo", it was a value proposition of, "Github is a valued part of the community and I'm willing to pay a token subscription fee in exchange for some token extra features". Partially because, well, it takes money to run Github and if people don't support them, they'd go broke and have to find some big corporate entity to acquire them.[1]

Sure, that motivation started to erode the longer that Github stayed around and the more money they made on their enterprise products, but there was never a sudden shift that forced anyone to reconsider the question until Microsoft came in.

[1] Editing with footnote: This is also one reason Bitbucket struggled despite having free private repos. Atlassian is big and corporate and widely resented already, so they couldn't even _offer_ that value proposition anymore than Microsoft can.

<comment><USER28> Bitbucket offered free private repos and was struggling before it was acquired by Atlassian.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> While understandable, this is sad to see. The amount of interesting and useful code that is currently available due to GitHub defaulting to public will likely be seriously negatively impacted by this.

<comment><USER30> I can only speak for myself, but I had simply put all of my private stuff over in GitLab instead. For folks like me, this will result in no external change. Just a question of where I stash stuff.

<comment><USER31> Yeah, I've just been using bitbucket for this purpose for years.

<comment><USER32> Same here but now I will probably switch to GitHub because I like their product.

<comment><USER33> One more, except I was one of those paying $7 a month to GitHub for the private repo's.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> "Due to a scheduling error, we published this story one day before the embargo lifted. This feature isn't live yet, but Github will formally unveil it tomorrow. When that happens, we'll update this post with a link to the official announcement. "

Not even an apology in there, would have expected more from TNW.

<comment><USER35> I'm sure they apologized to Github, even if they didn't apologize to you for reading it.

<comment><USER34> Ah that's good to know. Do you have a copy of the apology? Sadly, I don't have access to Chris Wanstraths email.

<comment><USER36> I'm sure Microsoft will be fine

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Awesome, awesome, awesome. I know I have no right to think that anyone would care for a moment about the code I'm writing or the potentially money-making side-projects I'm working on, but I am paranoid about entities like current/future employers and third parties seeing what I'm developing in private. I often just keep those local and back them up privately to an SD card, or go with private bitbucket (which is harder because I do all my at- work development on GitHub).

This will significantly increase my use of GitHub.

</comment><comment><USER38> So, when I go to downgrade my Pro account to the Free tier, it warns me:

> You will no longer have access to unlimited collaborators or advanced code > review tools in private repositories. > You will still have access to > unlimited private repositories.

So it seems some functionality beyond just unlimited collaborators that is tied to the Pro account - but the blog post makes no mention of what these "advanced code review tools" could be. Anyone know?

<comment><USER39> Hi! I work at GitHub.

All the details are listed on the official pricing page in the feature comparison section: [https://github.com/pricing](https://github.com/pricing) and in the docs: [https://help.github.com/articles/github-s-billing- plans/#bil...](https://help.github.com/articles/github-s-billing- plans/#billing-plans-for-personal-accounts)

<comment><USER33> As far as I can tell, neither of those resources describe "advanced code review tools".

What does that mean? What are these code review tools?

The help document does talk about Protected Branches and Code Owners but those seem different than code review tools and "code review" is listed in the free plan.

<comment><USER40> Looks like a bunch of "insights" are disabled - [https://i.judge.sh/Flutter/Doom/rNqHUIG3.png](https://i.judge.sh/Flutter/Doom/rNqHUIG3.png)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> That's the one of the reasons I stay with bitbucket or gitlab. If they offer this feature at the very beginning, I would never touch bitbucket/gitlab, but now both of them offering free build-in CI(public and private). I am hesitate to migrate back.

<comment><USER40> If it helps. Github is currently in beta for their own CI/CD platform: [https://github.com/features/actions](https://github.com/features/actions)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I don't understand that much awe. BitBucket offers unlimited private repos for up to 5 contributors, and GitLab has _no limit_. Much ado about nothing...

<comment><USER43> BitBucket has a terrible UI, historically suffers from outages, and is owned by Atlassian which is yet another downside.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> This is not about revenue percentage or anything revolutionary etc, this is about matching up competition offers: both gitlab and bitbucket are doing this, especially bitbucket who has unlimited private repo from the start, this is a catch-up move, nothing more than that.

</comment><comment><USER25> I think I'm the only person who's noticed that these free private repos are 2nd tier, with features removed; the marketing glosses over that.

<comment><USER45> The press release barely mentions it but it's true. The free private repos are cut down, including bizarre hold-backs like wikis. GitHub's wikis aren't great, but why hold them back? It's kind of mind boggling.

<comment><USER46> Public repo wikis would get read by an arbitrary number of people. Private repo wikis would only get read by the 1 to 3 repo collaborators. So perhaps they thought it wouldn't be a big deal to disallow them.

<comment><USER45> But if it's such a small deal, why remove it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I'm curious if GitHub is now a loss leader for Microsoft, or if personal subscriptions were a small portion of their revenue.

<comment><USER48> I have zero insight on this but I also don't know anyone in my circle who pays individually for Github... When they need that, they use Bitbucket.

I know several people I worked for or did business with that paid for Organization accounts, from Team to Enterprise.

<comment><USER49> It sounds like recently they sorted things out, but Bitbucket's interface was buggy to the point of unusability for me. Some scary permission issues like not being removed from a corporate team.

<comment><USER50> Bitbucket's website is slow as hell. I actually physically cringe when I have to do something through the website (e.g. create a pull request) because I know I'll be staring at slow-loading pages for the next 5 minutes, even for something that's 3 clicks away.

<comment><USER51> And their new sidebar interface is not only slow, but also not very intuitive. It really makes me want to migrate our corporate repositories to GitHub.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> GitLab has had this issue for EVER and I just switched to bitbucket a few days ago because of it: [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/issues/15140](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/15140)

I wish I had waited a few more days now.

</comment><comment><USER53> This was the reason why I mostly use GitLab for several years now. I prefer to make public those code that are refactored, well crafted and documented.

</comment><comment><USER24> I have been a vocal critic of Microsoft acquiring GitHub, but gotta give credit where credit is due - this might be enough for me to move my private repos back to GitHub.

</comment><comment><USER54> It still asks me to setup a subscription plan with cc to create a new private repo. What am I missing? Or has the upgrade not rolled out to me yet?

<comment><USER55> The CEO just said that "Give it a couple hours. We had to announce a day early due to a press leak.".

[https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1082346814802518016](https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1082346814802518016)

<comment><USER32> Works for me

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> "Private repositories on free accounts are limited to three collaborators apiece."

So let's be clear here. If I have 10 private repos, I can have 30 collaborators? Or they must be the same three.

<comment><USER57> At most you could have 21? You are de facto a collaborator I would presume.

<comment><USER58> 27?

<comment><USER59> 10 (repos) x 2 (collaborators) + 1 (owner) ? 21.

<comment><USER60> it's 3 collaborators not including the owner.

<comment><USER59> At the time we didn't know that. This thread was counting how many people it could be assuming that the owner was counted as a collaborator.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> I actively avoid using GitHub private repositories for this very reason since I have too many 7-9/month subscriptions it all adds up fast. This actually will encourage me to start some fun project ideas more now that I know I can rely on the private repos.

</comment><comment><USER62> So now what benefits does a subscription offer for a casual developer?

If the 3 collaborator limit isn't a problem, is there any reason to keep a subscription?

<comment><USER63> I imagine they'll eventually remove individual plans entirely. Microsoft probably doesn't care about the tiny revenue from random developers paying them and would rather focus on enterprise plans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> One thing I like about bitbucket/atlassian over github is bitbucket's pipelines[1] and the bitbucket-pipelines.yml file. I really wish github had something like that.

[1][https://bitbucket.org/product/features/pipelines](https://bitbucket.org/product/features/pipelines)

<comment><USER65> Github does have "Actions" which is their version of this which is in beta:

[https://github.com/features/actions](https://github.com/features/actions) [https://developer.github.com/actions/creating-github- actions...](https://developer.github.com/actions/creating-github-actions/)

<comment><USER64> I didn't know this existed, thank you for pointing it out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Can a Github.io website be freely hosted with a private repo?

<comment><USER67> Looks like no longer:

`Upgrade to GitHub Pro or make this repository public to enable Pages.`

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Well, either Way I will not leave Gitlab anytime soon.

<comment><USER69> +1 Gitlab is awesome! Cool community oriented developers and a ton of more features. I see no reason too use github when gitlab is just better. It's also offered as a self hosted service.

<comment><USER28> That's my exact issue with GitLab. They have a ton of features but they are not the best at any of those features.

<comment><USER70> What feature did you find lacking?

<comment><USER28> I find the GitLab issue board to have a poor UX. For example, depending on where you click, it will open a small summary to the right or it will open a new page with all the issue information.

Also, it is ridiculously expensive to have epics, compared to every other issue tracker I have seen, in GitLab issues.

<comment><USER71> Hi Eduardo, I'm a UX Designer at GitLab working on issue boards. If you click on the issue title, it will open the issue in a new window. If you click somewhere else in the issue card, it will open the summary sidebar. But I agree with you that it can be confusing and not the best UX! To improve it, we are planning to redesign the sidebar so that you can see most (if not all) of the issue's information, removing the need to open the issue in a new window. You can track the discussion and designs in this epic: [https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab- org/-/epics/383#note_108940...](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab- org/-/epics/383#note_108940213) Feel free to participate and share your thoughts.

I'd love to hear more about your painpoints with issue boards (and issues in general).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> That's cool. I have no problem paying a bit each month for more features on GitHub so hopefully they add more powerful features, but free private repos for individual projects is great since GitHub for many people is a portfolio.

</comment><comment><USER73> Anyone know when this is supposed to be turned on? I'm still seeing the old system/verbiage on the GitHub Billing page.

<comment><USER74> They just updated it a few minutes ago! By the time the blog post was out it was still asking for a credit card. Now it doesn't. They really rushed things out because of that TNW mistake!

Like many others here I'm also pretty happy about it. $7/month is not a lot of money but I also moved some personal private repos to BitBucket to avoid the fees. I will probably go back now.

<comment><USER73> Yeah, I'm in the process of migrating all of my GitLab repos to GitHub now.

My workflow is GitHub+CircleCI, so GitLab was never a big win for me; I just used it for the private repos.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> The power of free stuff

Jun 4 2018: (microsoft acquisition) Github sucks!

Jan 7 2019: (free repos) Github rocks!

<comment><USER76> Or, you know, they're different people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> I wanted to take a moment to point something out.

I think most people here would agree that "unlimited free private repos" is not considered lying when in fact the free private repos are limited to 3 collaborators... correct?

So why is it that when the subject turns to cell phone data, suddenly "unlimited data" is considered lying when the speed is then limited past a certain point?

(Yes, I get that one service is paid and the other is free, and that you don't look a gift horse in the mouth, but those are beside my point.)

<comment><USER78> Another difference is that, with GitHub's announcement, there are multiple ways to interpret it because there are different things that the modifier "unlimited" could apply to. It could mean:

1\. Unlimited number of repos, each of which is limited (by user, as it turns out).

2\. Limited number of repos, each of which is unlimited.

3\. Unlimited number of unlimited repos.

When there are multiple ways to interpret and you find out someone has picked one of them, it doesn't feel like they are being disingenuous.

Whereas with cell data plans, there's only one thing they could reasonably mean is unlimited: the data. So they've changed what "unlimited" means. It is limited, but there aren't overage charges.

<comment><USER77> In cell plans it's exactly the same thing though. The amount of data vs. the speed can each be artificially limited separately. They obviously mean the amount is unlimited whereas people somehow take it to mean both the amount and the speed are unlimited.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> Well, I think this is a pleasant surprise. I have many public github projects (code for various books I have written and a bunch of small open source projects). I have paid for a pro plan for many years because I like to keep very rough code experiments private, and maybe make them public if they ever get sufficiently mature.

I just took Microsoft/github up on their kind new deal and cancelled my pro plan at the end of the current yearly billing period.

Thanks Microsoft/github!

</comment><comment><USER80> I'll be curious to see how much Git-LFS is offered. I've been using Gitlab for private repos, but I need LFS as well.

Also, will be curious to see the pricing structure - if this changes anything. The sad thing about Github is I always liked it more than competition, and I _wanted_ to pay, but the price felt a bit steep for my usage. Since private will now be free, I hope they have some type of $4/m price range for solo devs, slightly better than free.

</comment><comment><USER81> From my own perspective,this results in me doing two things:

\- cancelling my paid subscription: but in truth I was planning to do this anyway and moving to self-hosted in some way...I just wasnt getting relative value paying to just have private repositories for my own projects (I don't want contributors, but that doesn't mean I want my work to be public).

\- but I will now as a result keep my repositories and activities on github. So this is a win for me: less work for now.

</comment><comment><USER82> Does anyone have a source for this news beyond the TNW article that's being shared everywhere? I couldn't find any official announcement from GitHub.

<comment><USER83> I'm the author of this post. The article has been updated to clarify that I accidentally published it one day before the embargo lifted. GitHub will formally announce the news tomorrow.

<comment><USER84> I would've deleted it as soon as you noticed. Might not have stopped people from noticing (nothing on the internet is ever deleted blah blah), but might have improved the optics a bit.

<comment><USER85> I am also curious why he didn't remove the post as soon as he noticed? Does TNW have policies regarding published stories not being removed?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> This is the main reason I used GitLab. Can't make student Git repositories public!

<comment><USER87> Students are usually eligible for free private repos. [https://education.github.com/pack](https://education.github.com/pack)

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> I'm still only seeing the free plan in Github as " Free plan, unlimited public repositories". Is this a slow rollout or something?

<comment> http-teapot Nat Friedman (GitHub's CEO) says in the next couple of hours: [https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1082346291290468352](https://twitter.com/natfriedman/status/1082346291290468352)

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> This is awesome!

I used to start my repos on Gitlab in private mode before publishing them publicly on Github. A huge time saver here!

</comment><comment><USER90> This is a bold move. That should prevent a potential exodus to other companies, post-Microsoft acquisition, although doubtful if such a bleed in customers occurred yet. GitHub is far ahead of everyone else thanks to its user interface anyway. This should at least force the competition to step up big time.

</comment><comment><USER91> In case anyone's curious about mirroring Github <-> Gitlab, there's a doc page[0] for it.

[0] [http://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/repository_mirroring.html](http://docs.gitlab.com/ee/workflow/repository_mirroring.html)

<comment><USER26> This is what I do for anything I make that I think would be easier to find on GitHub. And vice versa for my own build tools so I can accumulate the projects I use from GH under one group on GitLab.

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> Private repos with maximum of 3 collaborators are now allowed.

</comment><comment><USER93> I've been paying $7 a month since like 2010. Woohoo!

</comment><comment><USER94> Does this somehow apply to git-lfs, too?

This is quite important for game development, where binary assets grow faster than you can think. Azure DevOps includes unlimited, private lfs-storage for small teams. [1]

I also wonder how microsoft prevents abuse in such an environment, but that's another question...

[1] [https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/devops/2015/10/01/announcin...](https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/devops/2015/10/01/announcing- git-lfs-on-all-vso-git-repos/)

</comment><comment><USER95> Is there a reason to use github free over gitlab free for private projects? From what I can tell, gitlab has much better features and more features/limits available for free.

<comment><USER96> Hey Vinay, there's also a notable difference, at GitLab you don't have a limit to 3 user per private project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER97> [https://blog.github.com/2019-01-07-new-year-new- github/](https://blog.github.com/2019-01-07-new-year-new-github/)

</comment><comment><USER98> Am I the only person who thinks this isn't a big deal? Honestly get is not a personal storage space, it's capped at 1GB.

As a service anything I build privately will need more than three collaborators. Especially for things which are traditionally kept secret like academic software.

Maybe this might help freelancers but proliferationf private repos with very few contributors is an anti pattern.

Gitlab is still the clear winner for private use while Github remains the most active for public repos.

Nothing has changed.

</comment><comment><USER99> On the free plan gihub Pages still only works in public repos.

</comment><comment><USER100> Well hey, something GitHub lifted from GitLab, for a change.

</comment><comment><USER101> My strategy of avoiding this banner paid off: [https://cl.ly/224133cb505d](https://cl.ly/224133cb505d)

<comment><USER102> Haha, same here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER103> So what commercial service will GitHub offer to monetize at all? Ads? Data collection? I don't see a reason for anyone to pay for GitHub now.

<comment><USER84> There's enterprises and teams paying. This announcement is only for individual plans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> Is this even a surprise, the industry moved to a per user model a while back, inc Bitbucket. So its unlimited private repositories but you pay big time to get more than 5 users sharing that repo.

It's surprising most people here aren't picking up on that. If you have more private projects on that make money. It's more likely you have more collaborators that you have to pay.

</comment><comment><USER105> What a clever move. They probably make most of their revenue from medium to large companies, which will not be affected by this switch. At the same time, they're taking away one of the USPs of many competitors. This will increase GitHub's domination of the space even more, and thus be a net positive, despite the foregone revenue.

</comment><comment><USER106> Bitbucket has had free private repos for the longest time. Any compelling reason to move small private projects to GitHub?

</comment><comment><USER107> I was just about to move everything to Gitlab for this very reason. I've always preferred Github, so this is fantastic.

Thanks, Microsoft!

</comment><comment><USER108> I've been using BitBucket for years because it allowed me to do a free private account. Since then I've set 3 companies up with their own accounts there - the monthly spend isn't huge with any of them but that's money that would have been going to Microsoft had GitHub had a free starter option.

</comment><comment><USER109> Isn't that 3 contributor limit just a virtual limit. Assume there are 5 contributors (A, B, C, D, E) for a project. The organization could do this:

1\. Create two private copies of that repository

2\. A, B, C contribute to the first repository

3\. C, D, E contribute to the second repository.

4\. C will maintain the synchronization

5\. One could write scripts for performing synchronization.

<comment><USER110> Few people, if any, have the time and willingness to do such stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER111> I imagine this will harm BitBucket somewhat.

<comment><USER112> In my case, Bitbucket will lose someone who was just using it as a dumb git storage backend, and did not engage with the Atlassian products at all. I assume that they won't be particularly bothered to see the likes of me drop off.

<comment><USER10> This is exactly how I see it too.

If anything this move might be beneficial for Bitbucket because if there's a 0% chance we would use their other paid products, we were just taking up resources.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER113> When your competitors (bitbucket/git lab) have been offering the same thing for a while now, it only makes sense.

</comment><comment><USER114> I've been wanting to move a bunch of my old code into GitHub just for my own convenience, but have strained a bit on what I do and don't want to share publicly. Will probably take advantage of this and move most of it in private, and then gradually shift things to public as I'm comfortable with it.

</comment><comment><USER115> To me, the biggest revelation out of this news was actually finding out both BitBucket and GitLab already offers unlimited free private repos. I am now highly incentivised to move away from self-hosted git server in order to store my micro project repos which are heading to 3 digits.

</comment><comment><USER116> Those free private repos don't include pages, wikis, or repo insights. The "new" $7 pro do.

</comment><comment><USER117> I know the new Microsoft seems different (and I'm a fan), but I can't help but feel like we've seen this movie before.

Recall back when Internet Explorer was free and bundled with Windows, and there was a whole antitrust lawsuit over it by the Department of Justice. What was old is new again.

<comment><USER118> Is that really comparable? Github's competitors were already offering free private repo so it's only natural that they try and keep up with the market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER119> This means: GitHub now also offers unlimited free web hosting - with free SSL certificates! Look into GitHub Pages and Jekyll. That is a big deal! And something most people overlook.

</comment><comment><USER120> Many people will choose private then -> less public repositories. Github looses its essence.

<comment><USER121> I don't think so, If it's a public repository that means the owner have more confidence and willing to collaborate, which is a good thing. Also, free private repository -> more developers -> more repositories

<comment><USER120> Good point

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER122> "Due to a scheduling error, we published this story one day before the embargo lifted. This feature isn't live yet, but Github will formally unveil it tomorrow. When that happens, we'll update this post with a link to the official announcement. "

Well played @The Next Web :D

</comment><comment> nevi-me Good timing! I have a private Gitlab instance, but yesterday I was wondering whether to go for a paid GH account so I can host a private repo there.

I intend on sharing the code when ready, but wanted issues history to be on GH without needing to migrate anything.

This decision saves me $7 a month

</comment><comment><USER123> My employer, a financial services firm in New York, blocks both gitlab and bitbucket due to their free private repos. Even though they allowed github until now, I am worried that they will soon start blocking that as well! :(

</comment><comment><USER124> LOL!!! I was literally just having a conversation with a colleague to pay the $7 a month to github so he can have private repos to publish his code.

Now all Microsoft has to do is buy up StackOverflow and they will corner the developer social market.

<comment><USER125> Given github + so + linkedin, it may make total sense for them. Not sure if I want MS in that position. They aren't the MS of old, I'm just not sure I want them that involved in the developer jobs market, more than they already are.

</comment></comment><comment><USER126> And now that is a good move. I completely moved my repos to BitBucket due to that simple yet game-changing feature (and then to GitLab for not so simple ones).

I don't think I ever would have, if github had this. Not coming back though.

</comment><comment><USER127> I probably won't move to Gitlab or Bitbucket, then. This was the number one reason why I was considering it, now I can finally have personal private projects on Github. Good move on Microsoft's part.

</comment><comment><USER128> I don't understand. I can see it was published 2 days ago but author says it he mistakenly published 1 day before announcement. So Announcement should have happened if it's for real?..Is this for real ?

<comment><USER129> The author accidentally scheduled it to be published on the 5th instead of the 8th, and wordpress automatically publishes things if the date they are scheduled to be published is in the past.

</comment></comment><comment><USER130> I have to recall why I paid instead of using bitbucket 5 years ago this which also have private repo free (for 5 accounts if I remember correctly). I think it is easier to use and more common even then.

</comment><comment><USER131> I am pretty sure, bitbucket is going to get hurt with this move, and a little hurt for gitlab too I suspect. But a very smart move specially for individual developers looking to work on small side projects.

</comment><comment><USER132> Unlimited private repos was why at some point I used Gitlab, and why I was grateful that my email address from an old educational institution still worked. I'm glad that they're making this change.

</comment><comment><USER133> I wonder if it is because they are noticing their userbase numbers slipping.

</comment><comment><USER134> It's all about developers, developers. Microsoft is desperately trying to attract developers since many have left their platforms, GitHub doesn't need to be profitable on it's own for Microsofts sake

</comment><comment><USER135> I guess goodbye Gitlab. Only reason I used it was free private repos.

<comment><USER136> Same here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER137> GitHub = Free Public BitBucket = Free Private

I have 100+ repos on Github and about 30 private ones on BitBucket. Brilliant move because now I will use Github exclusively.

I do wonder how they will monetize "me" though...

</comment><comment><USER138> Official announcement

[https://blog.github.com/2019-01-07-new-year-new- github/](https://blog.github.com/2019-01-07-new-year-new-github/)

</comment><comment><USER139> I just discovered I can't downgrade because I have at least one repo with over three collaborators.

Has anyone figured out a quick way to determine which are the problem repos? (I have a lot!)

</comment><comment><USER140> Nothing unusual just standard Microsoft, first kill the competition (Gitlab) then when you're a monopoly f*ck users over ... they did this with IE, windows, etc.

</comment><comment><USER141> I love Github for open source and the community but for private repos I like But bucket more. Don't know why but the overall interface feels cleaner, less cluttered.

</comment><comment><USER102> Just in time!

My free academic discount expired a month ago. I was thinking to subscribe $7/month but it seems like I won't need to pay.

I was even sold to 10 private repos with 1 dev shared :)

</comment><comment><USER142> "Due to a scheduling error, we published this story one day before the embargo lifted."

This is really poor from TNW. They spoiled all the excitement in twitter tomorrow!

</comment><comment><USER143> Wow. Since Microsoft bought them they're doing a lot of really interesting things. If I was going to move my repos somewhere I'm not going to anymore.

</comment><comment><USER144> Good timing. I switched over to GitLab this morning to host my dotfiles because I have no other use for private repos on my personal GitHub account.

</comment><comment><USER145> This makes me uncomfortable.

Private subscriptions were a direct revenue stream for Github, and explained directly how they can afford the infrastructure that provides the service.

Generally when previously paid stuff becomes free, it's because the paid service is no longer a product - it's now a tool to attract users. How will users be monetised now?

<comment><USER146> They're now owned by Microsoft. Critical difference between Microsoft and Google - Microsoft makes all of their money from direct sales and enterprise contracts for their primary products, including Windows, Windows Server, SQL Server, ActiveDirectory, Office, etc, while Google makes their money from selling ads to you with as much targeting information as possible. So this is now a loss leader for Microsoft, primarily to draw your attention to their primary products, and any money it makes or loses is on too small of a scale for Microsoft to care probably.

There's plenty you can criticize Microsoft about for sure, but they aren't trying to gather boatloads of info about you, just keep you buying Microsoft software.

Now that I think about it like that, maybe Google is infact becoming more evil than Microsoft.

<comment><USER147> (disclaimer, I work for Google, opinions are my own)

Depends on the product you are using and what kind of data you're talking about. For Google, GSuite (the old Google Apps and GCP) are more business focused and don't really capture data about you. Free-tier products will gather more data to better target ads to you or to provide useful features.

For Microsoft, they do try to sell you products... but you have to look at other products where they do gather data on you. I'm not sure what kind of data they get out of Bing and outlook.com/Hotmail. Then you have LinkedIn, which is all kinds of data gathering (though more Facebook style).

It's sort of hard to give blanket statements about many of the large tech companies, as they have multiple divisions and products that operate differently depending on the target markets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Microsoft just gave me $84/yr. Thanks, Microsoft. Almost as much as I'm paying them for Office and 1TB of SkyDrive in fact.

</comment><comment><USER12> Just for context. Microsoft already offers free private repos, hosted builds, etc for Visusl Studio Team Services aka Azure Devops....

</comment><comment><USER148> I do not want to depend on any proprietary platform, it doesn't matter if it's friendly or not.

I favor a distributed model as much as possible, that means for now having personal/projects classic websites, mirrored for instance on ZeroNet&c and source code exchanged as much as possible only P2P. It's not comfortable now but that's the sole possible free evolution path we have and only investing in it now can ease situation tomorrow.

<comment><USER149> Git is a Distributed Version Control System. Just add another remote...

<comment><USER148> Of course, like the trend "hey if it does not work for you write down your code"...

On git only: what is another remote? A GitHub concurrent company? A personal dyndns from a single developer with a fable ADSL?

On GitHub: many use it's proprietary characteristics like PR, wikies, pages etc. That's not "portable" to any other remote if you do not count site- scraping...

No, we need to focus on distributed/decentralized solution _now_.

In the past at least we use tons of different hosting most of them offered by ISP that actually use hosted projects, universities that actually participate in many FOSS project so while not distributed we are decentralized on "friendly" systems. Not nearly all FOSS project is on a super-big-corp server. Without any viable alternative ready to use.

<comment><USER26> > On git only: what is another remote?

A _remote_ is a URL location of a repository. A local git repo can point to _multiple_ remotes by using the _git remote <opts>_ functionality. For instance, you can point your local repo to GitHub, GitLab, and BitBucket and choose which to push to using the command _git push <branch> <remote>_.

<comment><USER148> Hem, no perhaps is my poor English but you do not understand: I know what a git remote is. My point is what kind of "other remote" a typical FOSS project have these days?

In the past we have tons of hosters so we can easily spread our code in many "mirror", now there is GitHub and few others, mostly on the very same "cloud".

I mean you have no damn viable remote. Single devs can share code P2P but nothing that can work instantly out of the box.

<comment><USER150> > My point is what kind of "other remote" a typical FOSS project have these > days?

In the context of the original comment, think: "setup a /second/ remote" as the meaning. If the first 'remote' is github, the second remote could be gitlab, and so forth.

<comment><USER148> Ah ok, so you change Microsoft cloud for Google cloud... UAU... And what about PRs&c?

Sorry for being rude but for me is _unacceptable_ to depend on tons of proprietary stuff from a handful of vendors. Even personal websites that use Google Fonts, some JS framework directly from the "project" CDN (too hard to keep it on your disk, up to date) etc...

We need to be _interdependent_ or _independent_ not dependent of few subjects that make money on us for witch us are puppets. How can we say "it's FOSS" if so? How can we have FOSS as the tip of a proprietary iceberg?

<comment><USER150> You do realize that git itself is vendor independent, right?

One can, if one chooses, setup a git repository on a spare PC in ones basement and have a "git repository" into which one or more collaborators can "git push" and "git pull" to/from.

In the context of the original post, to which you asked "what is another remote", the second (or third, or fourth) 'remote' can be "any git repository to which the individual has access".

Having a second remote does not, in an of itself, require that that second remote be one of the proprietary git hosting systems, nor require that it be one of the semi-proprietary or open source hosting systems. It could just as well be plain git running in repository serving mode on an old PC.

See the documentation for the "git http-backend" and "git daemon" commands that are built into the git distribution.

<comment><USER148> Yes, git, however host a repo for anyone it's another story. In the past most FOSS projects was mirrored by tons of different participants, mostly universities, ISPs, companies with reasonable resource and being part of the project itself they can be considered friendly.

now with GitHub&c excluding Savannah the sole friendly option is buy a domain, a VPS and host there the project...

That's the problem, not technical but "political" to a certain extent.

In the past someone try GitTorrent to solve this problem a bit (opening the door for "personal hosting at home" but it's a dead project now ad it was never completed. Mostly because newcomers think GitHub&c as a free space by nature, something guarantee to work always and been always free without any other "occult" cost.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER151> I'm wondering if there's any chance that people that paid for the Pro plan a few days ago, get a refund.

</comment><comment><USER152> Also I wonder if they will get a lot of accounts continuing to pay because they missed this announcement. Perhaps most!

</comment><comment><USER153> I notice that "wikis" for private repos isn't supported. What happens to these wikis when I downgrade?

</comment><comment><USER154> Now I'm just waiting for GitHub CI. :)

<comment><USER155> Maybe Github Actions qualify? [https://github.com/features/actions](https://github.com/features/actions) I must say it looks almost like Gitlab's pipeline system, but somewhat more flexible. If Github's free plan allows you to use pipelines I might just have to test it to compare.

<comment><USER156> It does. I'm using them now, but they might still be only available to beta users right now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER157> I always got unlimited repos, i have unlimited email accounts. it's just good opsec to run multiple accounts.

</comment><comment><USER158> Cool, immediately downgraded to free account. Any chance of refunds for the last 6 months I was forced to pay?

</comment><comment><USER159> Nice. I wonder though whether in 5 years they won't discover it costs them money and decide to take it back.

</comment><comment><USER160> Are the "PRO" badges that have been showing up on Github profiles today in any way related to this?

<comment><USER161> Yes, they indicate paying customers.

<comment><USER160> Ah! I'd forgotten that I had a "paying account" through some educational promotion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER162> Gitlab's entire business model has just been attacked. We are unlikely to shift over because we us CI.

</comment><comment><USER163> I only have github base level membership for private repos

Does this mean I no longer have to pay for these services?

</comment><comment><USER164> One of the few online services I saw enough value in to pay for. I guess I can stop now. Sweet deal.

</comment><comment><USER165> Does anyone know if they are "auto downgrading accounts" if you currently pay for private repos?

<comment><USER166> I don't believe they are. It's pretty easy to go downgrade if you want to, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER167> Still amazed that anyone uses this site for more than trivial work, given that this language exists in their TOS:

"GitHub has the right to suspend or terminate your access to all or any part of the Website at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice, effective immediately. GitHub reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time."

<comment><USER168> Not agreeing or anything, but it seems a pretty standard TOS clause.

</comment></comment><comment><USER169> That would have been cool before I moved all my private stuff to gitlab.com. Ah well, too late.

</comment><comment><USER170> Thanks Microsoft, you just saved me $84 dollars a year. I just cancelled my paid account.

</comment><comment><USER171> This was the main reason I moved away from github. It's late, but still a welcome move.

</comment><comment><USER172> That was the reason I moved to bitbucket, now i don't see a reason to go back to github.

</comment><comment><USER173> Is `git clone <private repo SSH url>` for private repos broken for anyone else ?

</comment><comment><USER174> That sucks. I just bought a 1yr subscription last week...will they issue refunds?

</comment><comment><USER175> I canceled my subscription, $7 for a UI to a git server. It was kind of lazy tax on individuals.

What bothers me is that this move didn't seem as well planned and prepared for than previous changes, not a good sign. github has a certain flow, hope MS doesn't destroy that.

</comment><comment><USER176> Well, if true -- I'll be canceling my subscription :D

Thank you Github / Microsoft!

> Due to a scheduling error, we published this story one day before the > embargo lifted. This feature isn't live yet, but Github will formally unveil > it tomorrow. When that happens, we'll update this post with a link to the > official announcement.

Also... kinda unfair to others.

<comment><USER177> > Well, if true -- I'll be canceling my subscription :D > Thank you Github / > Microsoft!

What a weird way to thank a company. I get it, but still.

<comment><USER178> Did they just cut off a significant source of revenue, or do companies that subscribe to Enterprise make them so much more money that it doesn't matter?

<comment><USER179> Now that they belong to Microsoft, direct revenue is no longer as important. GitHub will probably be treated as a loss leader for the time being, with the long term goal of making it an Enterprise leader.

Microsoft will be more than happy to use GitHub for analytics, AI/ML research and to drive developers to their other offerings, especially their cloud ones.

Edit: Updated error from "lost" to "loss"

<comment><USER180> Just FYI - its "loss leader" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader)), although "lost leader" made me chuckle: I thought, for a second, maybe you are talking about Apple instead of Microsoft.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER181> One fear that has come to mind: Microsoft pulls a Google and tries to force Github and LinkedIn to work together somehow - like requiring a login from one to use the other. I hope they have the presence of mind to not poison Github with LinkedIn in any way.

</comment><comment><USER182> Uh oh, my dear bitbucket

</comment><comment><USER183> ok, for my $84 a year I'm now on "Github pro". What does "pro" get me beyond private repositories? Anything a solo developer would want?

</comment><comment><USER184> I'm sticking with Bitbucket. It works just fine for me.

</comment><comment><USER185> So, Microsoft cares more about capturing the complete social graph of the software community than it does about direct revenue from an already not-very profitable (or perhaps not at all profitable?) acquisition.

Got it.

<comment><USER186> Microsoft has both linkedin and github, meaning they have the social graph of the government, business and the technology spheres. That social graph is arguably even more valuable in terms of revenue opportunities than facebook's. Direct revenue of linkedin and github might as well be irrelevant.

<comment><USER185> Yeah, that's exactly what I'm thinking.

So, what's their social graph play?

<comment><USER187> I don't think this is a "social graph play". I think it's about them realizing that the small amount of revenue they get from individual subscriptions is worth less than the free advertising/marketing they get by making it free for individuals, and then letting developers advocate for GH inside organizations which end up buying Enterprise licenses.

This is more about getting people to use (or keep using) GitHub for their personal projects so that it seems like a natural/obvious/default choice for a bigger-budget project, and that's where the revenue is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER188> And I just got Gitea working on my ARM mini-server.

</comment><comment><USER189> It's funny to think people trust 3rd party to hold their proprietary source code which could be your biggest IP. I'm hosting my own Gitea for business related codes.

</comment><comment><USER190> This seems like a negative for Open-Source.

</comment><comment><USER191> well there goes 90% of the reason I still had a BitBucket account. brb migrating my private repos to Github.

</comment><comment><USER192> Gotta put your hands on that juicy data.

</comment><comment><USER193> whew! so many future and present half-finished projects should start disappearing (including mine)! woohoo!

</comment><comment><USER194> Has anyone here used AWS CodeCommit?

</comment><comment><USER195> If only the code was open source

</comment><comment><USER196> Weehoo, free private repos!!!

</comment><comment><USER197> Hm... not working for me :(

</comment><comment><USER198> [deleted]

<comment><USER199> Seriously? Can you elaborate?

<comment><USER200> Just by the nature of the comment, dropping such an inflammatory claim with 0 context or evidence, you can tell they were probably flagged with good reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER201> Remember SourceForge?

</comment><comment><USER202> YES! * runs off to finally push that Hello World app into a private repo :D _

</comment><comment><USER203> Best part of my day!

</comment><comment><USER204> AT LAST.

</comment><comment><USER205> WOOHOO!

</comment><comment><USER206> Great News

</comment><comment><USER207> Wow. So now it is as good as GitLab!

</comment><comment><USER208> no longer need bitbucket

</comment><comment><USER199> I like the last two paragraphs :p

</comment><comment><USER70> I think it is great for users that private repos are now free up to three users. This is especially great if you're starting to program and don't want to feel ashamed of your code but don't have a paid account.

I like to think that increased competition from us (GitLab) contributed to this change, we recently passed 10m repositories on GitLab.com

At GitLab we think that repositories will become a commodity and we're focussing on making a single application for the entire DevOps lifecycle.

I think Microsoft will try to generate revenue with people using Azure more instead of paying for repos.

Also see our blog post [https://about.gitlab.com/2019/01/07/github-offering- free-pri...](https://about.gitlab.com/2019/01/07/github-offering-free-private- repos-for-up-to-three-collaborators/)

<comment><USER209> Are people really ashamed of their code? How are they even able to assess the quality of their code especially when they are just getting started? It feels sort of a Catch-22. Also, how does making private repos free help here?

I think a more encouraging move would be to have people with all experiences share as much of their progress as possible so that people who are getting started can find inspiration and learn to overcome their "imposter" feelings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER210> just microsoft being evil here. clearly.

</comment><comment><USER211> About time.

</comment><comment><USER212> Nobody has mentioned the official GitHub announcement yet?

[https://blog.github.com/2019-01-07-new-year-new- github/](https://blog.github.com/2019-01-07-new-year-new-github/)

<comment><USER213> That was just posted (in response to this embargo break)

</comment></comment><comment><USER214> "private" in the sense that only you and Microsoft can access it :)

</comment><comment><USER215> Is this the ultimate evernote killer? I feel like every note hosting platform for technical notes will be second to this.

</comment><comment><USER216> Sure, theNextWeb had a "scheduling error", and this has nothing to do with being the first to put this news out.

<comment><USER83> Look at the URL. The datestamp is set to the 5th instead of the 8th, when the embargo for the news lifts. The only reason this post was published early was because a stupid typo when scheduling it.

<comment><USER217> And, on a numeric keypad, the 5 is directly below the 8, supporting the typo hypothesis. Tweets from the author:

> _Oh fuck me._

> _I just accidentally published a major piece of news one day early because I > 've got butterfingers and typed the wrong number in the scheduler._

> _Is it too early to start drinking?_

> _Wordpress is fucking stupid. If you schedule something for \_ in the > past\\* it should say "er, are you sure?" instead of just immediately > publishing the post.*

What I find most interesting about the fiasco is that TheNextWeb.com's editorial process consists of the stock Wordpress "Schedule a post" function [1] which includes this lovely tidbit:

> _Tip: Always double check the date at the top of this calendar before > clicking publish, and verify that it correctly says AM or PM_

Trying it out in a test instance of Wordpress, he's correct: The initial status of a new post is "publish immediately." [2] Clicking "Edit" brings up a date editor. [3] And "OK" doesn't warn you if your date is in the past. [4] Finally, clicking the "Publish" (which could read "Schedule") generates a post with the URL /01/05/ that's visible immediately with no warning. [5]

Note the visibility and status options above the date: Wordpress does support some options for "draft" or "pending review" options with private/password- only visibility, but apparently TNW - a business that draws $15 million in revenue, is among the top 20,000 websites, and has dozens of employees - didn't use them before this oops.

I somehow assumed that there would be a red-tape process involving legal, editorial, and managerial oversight before you could get any content to the front page of a site like this. Not sure after seeing this if TNW is just playing fast and loose, or if everyone is...

[1] [https://en.support.wordpress.com/schedule-a- post/](https://en.support.wordpress.com/schedule-a-post/)

[2] [https://i.imgur.com/0CxPYhS.png](https://i.imgur.com/0CxPYhS.png)

[3] [https://i.imgur.com/qa7emUd.png](https://i.imgur.com/qa7emUd.png)

[4] [https://i.imgur.com/svyNS6K.png](https://i.imgur.com/svyNS6K.png)

[5] [https://i.imgur.com/dPyURfD.png](https://i.imgur.com/dPyURfD.png)

<comment><USER218> You actually responded to the author (matthewjhughes), which also supports the typo hypothesis.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Know any good AdWords bidding automation SaaS solutions? - <AUTHOR>

Keeping all my AdWords CPC bids optimized is taking me a lot of time (I have about 20 campaigns, all with different seasonality, so periodic tuning is necessary). I'm guessing this should be a very common problem for small startups.
I have worked with bidding algos in the past (unfortunately I am not at liberty to use them in my side projects), but I remember a little bit of trickery got you a long way in terms of CPA optimization. I googled around looking for bidding automation solutions, and all I can find are ugly-looking ms-windows applications that seem to belong to an age long gone.
Where's the snappy, startup-friendly SaaS adWords bidding automation provider? <comment><USER2> SearchForce, ClickEquations, AdGrok (YC company) all have good solutions. There are other similar providers as well...

<comment><AUTHOR> ClickEquations and SearchForce seem to target companies far larger than my side-project.

I got a demo account at AdGrok, but they don't seem to provide an automated bidder. Will keep looking though.

Thanks again for the information zoomzoom!</comment></comment>


The most expensive software failure ever: $3.2B dollars - <AUTHOR> http://www.smashcompany.com/business/the-worst-software-project-failure-ever <comment><USER2> 3.2 is not even close, the amount of energy Bitcoin miners are using and will use is the most expensive software failure.</comment>


Ask HN: What are you thankful for? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I am incredibly thankful for the internet, and to all the people who have created and shared videos and wrote books that helped to pull me out of the deep dark hole of ignorance/hopelessness/depression.

I come from a pretty dark environment, and I can't count the times when the access to the internet and information created by brilliant people have literally saved my life. And, perhaps more importantly, made it worth living.

I am thankful for Owen Cook, Paul Graham, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Ayn Rand, Dan Harmon, Randall Munroe, Louis CK, and countless other brilliant and bright people. They are my heroes, they have created things that inspired me, and taught me about the world, and brought a lot of joy into my life.

\----

I am also very thankful for the fact that I have discovered 3D graphics at a very early age. It showed me what it feels like to be extremely passionate about something, and how awesome and fun it can be to create things. It taught me to think and to learn things and to care about my craft, and to pursue mastery at what I do. It drove me to learn English language and, ultimately, opened to me the world of everything else that I love and care about.

<comment><USER3> Out of interest, what about Ayn Rand's writing in particular, or what themes, were appealing to you? If you do not mind saying, of course. It's a good list of people.

<comment><USER2> She showed me how to think well. She is amazing at writing in a clear, precise way that demonstrates the thinking process of a rational person.

She taught me to face reality and deal with it rationally, instead of flinching away from it and trying to ignore/rationalize things. To solve problems by thinking about things deeply, determining the best course of action, and then pursuing it. To think for myself, from the first principles, to rely on my own judgement, to have the courage to believe in what makes sense to me. To take responsibility for my life(for my choices and their results).

She taught me about determining my values and optimizing for them, choosing a purpose and pursuing it, stepping on a path to mastery and striving to become an expert at what I do.

She inspired my interest in engineering, science, entrepreneurship, rationality.

Her heroes(Dagny, Hank Rearden) gave me a vision for the kind of person I want to be.

The massive impact Atlas Shrugged had on my life, and the amazing quality of her writing, made me want to become a good writer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> My health, after having been hit by a car while cycling (airlifted to Stanford Hospital back in 2013), and having gone through depression several times in my life which could have taken bad turns.

My family, who was supportive of me quitting my first job from stress and depression and gave me the time to recover.

My childhood friends, who all grew up in SV together and still remain close friends (just went on a morning hike together on Thanksgiving day). We definitely keep each other sane amidst the insanity, anxiety, and hypercompetitiveness of modern SV.

My social situation, which spares me from the fear that many peers feel regarding the upcoming presidency and the emboldened vitriol of the hateful.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm thankful for the luck of the industry.

I use futureme.org to write diaries to my future self, and when I went into college after dropping out of high school, I wrote one that said I'd drop out of college too if a job were to offer me 40k/yr.

4 years later I graduated and moved to SF for 140k, and it didn't stop there.

I wish I could say I knew it would go this way, and was destined for greatness, yadda yadda, but I was as surprised as anybody.

The thing I was passionate about happened to explode into a darling of basically every company.

I'm thankful I was in the right place at the right time.

</comment><comment><USER6> I am thankful for my wife, who loves me.

I am thankful that both of my daughters are healthy and smart young women.

I am thankful for the AT&T team who created UNIX.

I am thankful for the programmers who work on the Linux, GNU, *BSD, Plan 9, and FreeDOS operating systems.

I am thankful to all the programmers who make free software possible.

I am thankful for the ACLU, the EFF, the CBLDF, and the NRA.

I am thankful to Edward Snowden for revealing that our government has been breaking the law.

I am thankful that there are things like Pinboard and Tarsnap out there, where building something good is the goal.

I am grateful for Project Gutenberg, Wikipedia, Hacker News, and Lobste.rs; all for providing me interesting things to read.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm most thankful for my wife. I don't think I'd have it in me to work as hard as I have if it weren't for her. I know she's always got my back, no matter what.

<comment><USER8> Here here! Also thankful for my wife and family.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Thankful to have a passport which allows me to travel almost anywhere (probably the most overlooked advantage of being born in a first world country).

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm incredibly thankful for my education. I've had the privilege of being relatively well educated and looking back I am incredibly grateful that my parents were both willing and able to put me through decent schools.

</comment><comment><USER11> Being alive. Being an American. Kids being alive and delightful. Having a Constitution, one protected by a brave, dedicated volunteer force. Health. Hacker News. The opportunity to work for Microsoft a couple decades ago. Fantastic coworkers. JavaScript, web2py, golang. Fender guitars. Owning our home and being debt free. Surviving childhood beatings.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Literally thankful to be alive.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm very thankful to have quit my job to travel and freelance 8 months ago.

It wasn't all pretty but I have grown and challenged myself in many ways that I otherwise would not have been able to!

I'd be glad to discuss with anyone interested in doing the same either over a Tokyo beer or email (:

<comment><USER13> I am interested to go Tokyo (maybe work there), whats your email address?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I am thankful for living in the "information age" and for the effort of the people making it reality.

Once I spent my holiday trakking in Turkey and was reading HN during a pause on a mountain. I stumbled upon the link [https://sivers.org/book](https://sivers.org/book). I used my kindle to by some books about stoism and read them on my jurney. In English, which I mainly practice on online forums. I came back home with a different view of life. Now I know that happines is not measured in the PS of my car, the area of my flat, my bank balance or the jealousy of neighbours. OK, a high bank balance is still a fine thing but I stopped caring about the rest. And I become a better person.

This couldn't have happened without the "information age" being reality.

</comment><comment><USER15> I am thankful for my elders and felllow citizens to provide for free education, free healthcare, and retirement for all.

My turn.

</comment><comment><USER16> Incredibly thankful for the opportunity to have moved to the US 10 years ago. It's not a perfect country -- but there is no other place I like to call home today.

<comment><USER17> That's heartwarming. Can I ask where are you coming from originally?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I am thankful to Tim Berners-Lee.

I am thankful for being born in this era.

I am thankful to everyone who is in Open Source.

I am thankful for your time reading this.

</comment><comment><USER19> I am thankful for my cats and my partner. I'm thankful for the very faint hope that I might get to see Mars in person one day. I'm thankful for the fact that we care about AI and are making progress in that field. I'm thankful that I was born lucky, into a middle class family who moved from a post-Soviet country to the U.S. and gave me opportunities I wouldn't have otherwise had. I'm thankful that I lucked into some good genes.

</comment><comment><USER20> Modern dentistry

</comment><comment><USER21> Air to breathe, water to drink, sunshine and my family.

</comment><comment><USER22> I am thankful for my life.

I am thankful for my kids who think of me as their 'rock'.

I am thankful for my relationships and experiences.

I am thankful that I have Asperger's and think logically about everything.

I am thankful that I live in the age of information, which will (hopefully) make the world a better place.

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm thankful for living in the most prosperous country in the world. [http://www.li.com/about/press-releases/new-zealand-is-the- mo...](http://www.li.com/about/press-releases/new-zealand-is-the-most- prosperous-country-in-the-world)

and I'm thankful for living in the country with the most liberty! [http://patrickrhamey.com/saturday- research/2016/5/24/2016-st...](http://patrickrhamey.com/saturday- research/2016/5/24/2016-state-of-world-liberty-index)

<comment><USER24> When you're from NZ, no one is desperate to kill you or trade with you. Its a double-edged sword.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> My job at buffer. It rescued me from a job which left me sad most days (mostly a difference in cultures there. The people were fine). And did so just in time for our child being born (4 days ahead to be precise). Thanks to that I now work from home, alongside my little one and wife, both whom I absolutely love, and I've been fortunate to witness every single "first" of my son's. All while working on things I love with amazingly supportive people. When I'm older I'll probably look back on this part of my life with the hashtag #HappinessIs :)

</comment><comment><USER26> I'm thankful that I don't have to worry about my surivival and the survival of my family and friends. Too many people around the world have reasonable doubt that they will survive to tomorrow or if they will have another meal.

I'm thankful for my friends and family who's support I couldn't do without.

I'm thankful for all of the strangers and community members that have helped me along the way, asking nothing in return. I hope I can do the same for many others.

I'm thankful for all of the great people who stand up for others and do good when they have nothing to gain.

</comment><comment><USER27> I am most thankful for my family, my parents, my brother.

</comment><comment><USER28> StackOverflow. The website, not the error of course.

<comment><USER29> I'm thankful to both.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> God, country and family. Maybe also for computers :9

</comment><comment><USER31> The Go programming language.

<comment><USER32> Couldn't agree more!

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Dad : For his perseverance and patience which saw us through many struggles to get us an education. His words : things learnt stay learnt - no forces can steal them from you echo strongly now.

Internet and programming: opportunities and possibilities that it provides is unprecedented.

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm so thankful I work in an industry with high enough demand that I can have a job I love

</comment><comment><USER17> The new MacBook Pro

</comment><comment><USER35> I heard this one over the dinner table tonight, but rule of law.

</comment><comment><USER36> I'm thankful for everyone that decided to contribute to the world by sharing information freely, be it knowledge, software, entertainment...

Those are my heroes, small and big.

</comment><comment><USER37> I am extremely thankful to speak English as a first language.

</comment><comment><USER38> I am thankful for the internet and all the opportunities it has provided me.

</comment><comment><USER39> Im thankful I have the ability to exercise critical thinking.

</comment><comment> blubb-fish after watching "trans fatty lives" I am thankful for not being challenged by anything even remotely as severe as ALS.

</comment><comment><USER40> For all the Trolls keeping theinternet

</comment><comment><USER41> I am thankful to be alive.

</comment><comment><USER42> Licorice

</comment><comment><USER43> Python

</comment><comment><USER44> For smart questions</comment>


Moral Pollution in Place of Reasoned Critique - <AUTHOR> https://quillette.com/2018/10/14/moral-pollution-in-place-of-reasoned-critique/ <comment><USER2> That's a very long-winded way of rehashing the same old tropes of the 'reasonable centrist' using logic and reason to establish arguments as opposed to silly liberals who only rely on their feelings. It's almost cited verbatim in the article ('the Untruth of Emotional Reasoning'). But then, it should be expected of a platform whose pitch is "academia is too left-wing for our tastes". A few specific things that struck me:

-The so-called Us vs. Them divide, where 'Us' is supposedly the Left and 'Them' is the Right. It should be reminded - not for the first time, and certainly not for the last time - that there's more to the American political spectrum than the overwhelmingly American Quillette audience may think. For the rest of the Western world and many non-Western democracies, Democrats are in fact right-wing; and the views of Republicans on many social issues would pass as either far-right or so outlandish as to be hard to make sense of. From there, it makes sense that if you are left-wing (in the 'rest of the world' sense, not the Quillette one), you _are_ going to perceive much of the American 'left' as part of the right. It's not that there are 'tribes' \- it's the fact that actual left-wing beliefs are fringe in America. I find it ludicrous when huge tech corporations that operate in at-will employment states, dodge taxes and labor regulations are routinely accused of being 'too leftist'.

-'Our brains evolved for tribal warfare'. I know this is Quillette, but _come on_.

-The whole article permeates with a rhetoric whereby one's point of view is placed above the fray and draws facile analogies with history (people refusing to associate with right-wingers in college campus vs. e.g. people refusing to eat unclean animals for religious reasons). It follows that line of reasoning where the speaker is unbiased, logically-minded and in full possession of the facts whereas the opponent is emotionally driven, cannot comprehend any argument and lashes out like an animal. I don't believe this tactic is so far removed from the so called 'ad hominem' attacks the author mentions in the article.

Lastly, and this is more a general point on 'discriminating the writer': people attack each other for their opinions all the time, and have been doing it for millennia. Pretty much all philosophers, scientists and other such people that we typically hold to be great thinkers were not above attempts to discredit, debase or otherwise humiliate their intellectual opponents or rivals. Voltaire wrote a _poem_ to specifically insult his rival Fréron. In fact, the whole process is called _politics_ , and I'm afraid it will last as long as mankind does.

Does that mean we should give up any pretense of civility and take it out on an all-out Hobbesian war for our personal interests? Of course not. Many of us are lucky enough to live in countries where most attacks on political grounds are verbal only, and limited to abrasive posts on blogs or social media. (This cannot be said about less fortunate countries like Syria, for instance.) But to make 'civility' a talking point of your political standing, and using it as an argument in a political debate is just disingenuous. If you say something that I find morally repellent, I _will_ be repelled, and state as much. If you hold opinions that I perceive to be putting my safety or individual rights into jeopardy, I _will_ lash out in response. If we have a disagreement that revolves around my identity and can only be resolved with its erasure, there can be no debate, only conflict, until _I_ win.

You may argue that this is all subjective, and that conservative voters may feel the exact same way regarding _their_ own identity, etc. And you would be right. And _here_ lies the crux of what I believe is the hidden sentiment behind all these appeals to logic, reason and civil arguments: it's not that they're deploring personal attacks and shaming _per se_ , it's the fact that shaming someone for being right-wing _works_ in 2018, whereas the same cannot be said for being on the left. It's not a case of 'I wish both left and right would all get along in the marketplace of ideas', it's a case of 'I wish the cultural leftward shift stopped happening so my not-so-left views were socially acceptable again'. A whole class of people is noticing their opinions are being relegated to the fringe, and they just want it to stop. This process is _also_ part of politics, and time will tell who wins the power struggle.

<comment><USER3> I'm really confused by a lot of what you said, but I agree with some of it.

When you say that these appeals to reason and logic are generally to protect the right from our left-going politics, I agree somewhat. When the right use this as an argument within political debate, IE, if someone presents a reasonable point, and they simply reject it on the basis of their emotionality or perceived lack of reason, they're no better than those that reject others' ideas out of hand because of their emotionality. I don't think the right using 'logic and reason' as a weapon is a sufficient basis to reject said logic and reason, though.

You seem to take the view that we have no control over our ability to practice rhetoric and argue with logic and reason, instead of ad hominem or other pointless attacks. So what are we to do? Call it politics and move on? I don't think you properly argue against this article. You say that your point doesn't lead to this all out hobbesian war, because...Syria? We should count ourselves lucky that instead of violence, we get to use verbal personal attacks?

I don't think your post is really all that at odds with this article. I think it'd be totally fine if you were to reject a point on the basis of moral repugnance, as long as that is stated in a reasonable way. If you reject a _person_ on this basis, then there's a problem, right? If you simply reject anything Haidt has to say, then we get nowhere. If you reject one of his contentions on the basis of, well, _something_ then great. That's how discourse is supposed to work. " _come on_ " is a good example of rejecting an idea out of hand without reasoning.

You say that "Us vs Them" doesn't matter or is invalid because...the US is more right than the rest of the world? This us vs them thing, it doesn't really matter where on this spectrum you lie. Indeed this is not relegated to politics at all. The issue crops up when "we" reject "their" idea because it's "them" \-- it does not make a difference whether "us" is the American left or the rest of the world's left. Or any other group. I do agree that the US has to reject our extremely right leaning politics, but it's possible the only way that we're going to be able to do that is, well, using logic and reason. What other alternative exists?

<comment><USER2> Apologies - the points are supposed to address specific takes in the article and as such they may not appear very connected. To clarify:

>We should count ourselves lucky that instead of violence, we get to use verbal personal attacks?

I'm arguing that power struggles have always been a thing and will always be. That we managed to establish a society where these mainly manifest in the form of political lobbying, social media arguments, street demonstrations, etc. instead of an all-out war is a good thing obviously, but it doesn't mean that people feeling marginalized won't do everything in their power to tip the balance of the struggle in their favor. And yes, this may degrade into personal attacks. I'm just pointing out that this has been the case forever, and banking on "my political opponents are wrong because they use ad hominems" is plain false at best, hypocritical at worst.

>If you reject a person on [a point], then there's a problem, right?

Not at all. Political views do not exist in the air. They are always associated with people, and they always carry tangible consequences for other people, who may react accordingly. If you think that my sexual orientation should be stigmatized and that I should have less rights than people with other sexual orientations, I will do everything in my power so that your views are ridiculed and shamed until I can display my sexuality and enjoy the same rights as other people's. If you think that the tech company you work at purposefully lowers the bar for women, thereby implying that women who were already hired by said company are not as skillful as men who were hired for the same job, I will take offense at that and do everything in my power so that people won't think I'm an unskilled impostor. If that leads to you being terminated, so be it. There's a difference between 'I feel you are misguided, but let's agree to disagree' and 'I feel you are threatening me and my rights'. From there, it does not matter whether you make some valid point elsewhere - I will not relent until the threat is gone. This is where argumentation stops and conflict starts.

>You say that "Us vs Them" doesn't matter or is invalid because...the US is more right than the rest of the world? This us vs them thing, it doesn't really matter where on this spectrum you lie. Indeed this is not relegated to politics at all. The issue crops up when "we" reject "their" idea because it's "them" \-- it does not make a difference whether "us" is the American left or the rest of the world's left.

I simply reject the notion that people think in tribes when it comes to politics. The political spectrum in America is narrow, but many people hold diverse points of views in the fringe. The author laments the fact that she is depicted as right-wing, and then goes on to make a sort of condescending, wishy-washy-evopsychy point about people being unable to conceive of more than two ways of thinking ('ours' and 'theirs'), when the alternative I'm suggesting is simpler: she _is_ right-wing, and I'm guided by the fact that the non-US world would agree with me.

About this 'logic and reason' thing: I believe we as humans are flawed, deeply irrational, and no amount of 'overcoming bias' is going to change that. If logic and reason came naturally to us, the entirety of mathematics would be trivial to everyone. As it turns out, many fields of advanced mathematics are utterly incomprehensible for everyone but a few dozen people in the world, and even rather elementary, engineering-oriented mathematics is still cryptic to all but a tiny minority of, well, engineers. The fact of the matter is, it is _so hard_ to use logic and reason properly that it takes _years_ of study backed up by _millennia_ of research to even get acquainted with these elementary mathematics. How can we then pretend that we could reasonably put our minds in that same frame of thinking in other subjects, that are not only immensely more complex, but also much more emotionally charged? I believe we can't. To me, any appeal to 'logic and reason' is suspicious, as it is more indicative of someone unaware of their own flaws than any attempt at overcoming bias.

>What other alternative exists?

I don't have a proper answer to this question. Of course, we don't want to throw everything out of the window and become flat-earthers or something, but the question of informed decision/policy making as irrational agents will likely remain a hard problem for the centuries to come. Sometimes plain empiricism helps - just looking at historical precedents or other countries' policies may help guide one's decisions, but in many cases you only have, well, your gut feelings. And your rights to defend.</comment></comment></comment>


Matt LeBlanc to Be Top Gear Co-Presenter - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35490238 <comment><USER2> HN?

<comment><USER3> Yup! That's where we are!</comment></comment>


HAProxy Geolocation Provider Needs Help - <AUTHOR> http://www.countryipblocks.net/information/two-days-left/

<comment><AUTHOR> Quick note:

1\. I'm not affiliated with either these guys or HAProxy.

2\. The HAProxy guy(s) posted this too - see the site (<http://haproxy.1wt.eu/>).</comment>


Summing Up - a Tale of Code Optimisation (TCO) - <AUTHOR> http://www.solipsys.co.uk/Writings/SummingUp.html

<comment><USER3> Why would you spend so much time on writing and optimizing the hand coded version of 'sum' instead of simply upgrading your version of python on that system, which would take only a few minutes at worst?

The built-in sum would outperform that loop quite handily I would imagine.

<comment><AUTHOR> My direct personal experience - as attested by the guys I work with - is that upgrading something like Python, or a browser, breaks my machine for up to a week as I fight through dependency hell.

The machine is running SuSE 8.1 with a broken YaST. Upgrading Python - <USER2> suspect - would require upgrading all the C libraries, _etc._ Easier just to wipe that machine and start from scratch, but why bother? This was just a trivial play on the side.

<comment><USER3> chroot is your friend in such cases.

<comment><AUTHOR> But then I would never have had the fun of exploring these different versions of a classic algorithm.

There's a bigger point about your comment though. I've learned through painful, painful experience to be wary of people who say "Why not just ..." It usually hides a weath of knowledge and experience that they take for granted, but which takes time to accrue. Upgrading Python might just take half a day, or it might take a week. How do I know in advance what that would be? How do I know that in the middle of it I'll still have a usable machine at all for stuff I need to be doing?

There's the old saw about stopping to sharpen the axe because, in the long run, it'll be quicker. I'm always very aware of that. I've found that trying to "sharpen the axe" by way of "upgrading" my machine _always_ ends up costing far more time than it saved.

Your experience will no doubt be different, but your knowledge base is different from mine. There are swathes of things I don't know, don't have time to explore, and don't really care about.

In truth, I wrote the versio that blew the stack, played around for 30 minute because it was interesting, took a break, then wrote the obvious final version.

Time well spent, and certainly more fun that upgrading Python. (On that machine).

<comment><USER3> Oh, I agree about the fun part :)

But when you're optimizing something that usually indicates you would like to have your results faster! ;)

Dependency hell is one of the bigger shortcomings of the way software is distributed, my way of dealing with that is to link against static libraries or use that chroot. For most packages static linking is a compile time flag.

Typically though, compiling from source should work, it's when you start upgrading from binaries in older repositories that the trouble starts.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


EPA Makes Rollback of Clean Water Rules Official, Repealing 2015 Protections - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2019/09/12/760203456/epa-makes-rollback-of-clean-water-rules-official-repealing-2015-protections <comment><USER2> Well, at least it will be officially totally safe for everyone in a Flint to drink their water again!

Progress!</comment>