4 ms·

GitHub banned us without notice – Is Microsoft the risk we didn’t consider?

53 points by chrisdbanks 8y ago

sciurus 8y ago
Their Github account at https://github.com/prowriting https://github.com/prowriting looks boringly normal. I wonder what could have caused Github's systems to flag it and a customer service rep to decide it was not legitimate.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  There doesn't seem to be much going on there? Over 13 repos, there are like 5 issues, all open, with one response that seems to be from some other user who just randomly wandered in? There are a few commits and a couple of branches, but no releases. Also a couple really ancient forks. This looks like a random person's GitHub page, not a software company's. They also don't have any links to their GitHub pages on their site. This isn't how organizations normally use GitHub. One suspects they're just using it as a CDN without engaging with any of the coding or social features. Perhaps GitHub has some sort of trigger when particular resources get requested over and over without any referer? Why not just use GitHub normally? Failing that, why not just use a CDN?
  - cannonedhamster 8y ago
    CDNs cost money. The whole point of most businesses lately seems to be externalizing costs while providing the least amount of service that they can get paid gobs of money for. I understand that's a sound business model in a race to the bottom, but eventually you hit the bottom and the whole market losses.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      They don't cost enough money to justify this whole embarrassing episode. Probably they're just a little bit harder to configure than it was to just dump everything on GitHub.
  - rqs 8y ago
    But now, think this whole thing in this way: Should GitHub block them because of all that?
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      That's really up to GitHub. They have to weigh the cost of being the lazy dude-bro's CDN against the bother of dealing with entitled whinging like TFA. To be clear, they certainly are justified in blocking this user. GitHub is for collaborative development, not code distribution.
harryh 8y ago
Microsoft's acquisition of Github hasn't closed yet, so the company is still operating independently. There is no reason to think that this has anything to do with Microsoft. To be honest, it seems like a fairly simple mistake that was cleaned up within 48 hours. Certainly a pain in the ass, but these things happen.
- bovermyer 8y ago
  The Microsoft-fear in this article isn't justified. However, the author does point out several good practices: * Don't host your code only in one place * Don't host your services only in one provider * Don't host your backups only in one provider I suppose you could argue the second one, but the other two are important to follow.
  - m-p-3 8y ago
    Yeah, treat code as any kind of data. If it's worth a lot of time and cannot be replaced easily, back it up.
  - pvtmert 8y ago
    imho he mostly talks about vendor/provider lock-in.
- jetti 8y ago
  Also, let's not forget that there are outages with AWS as well that take down quite a few services [0]. To me, this post seems like an easy way to take a cheap shot at Microsoft and get their name out there while doing so. [0] https://www.recode.net/2017/3/2/14792636/amazon-aws-internet-outage-cause-human-error-incorrect-command https://www.recode.net/2017/3/2/14792636/amazon-aws-internet...
- adrianmonk 8y ago
  Is it even legal to allow the acquiring company to direct your activities before the deal closes? It seems like it could run afoul of anti-trust laws if you are functioning as one company in a situation where the merger might not get government approval. I also wonder if it could cause liability issues because, until the deal closes, you are obligated to do what your current owners want you to, not your hypothetical (but probable) future owners. Especially if you are a public company and those owners are shareholders that you probably have certain legal obligations toward.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

53 points by chrisdbanks 8y ago

Their Github account at https://github.com/prowriting https://github.com/prowriting looks boringly normal. I wonder what could have caused Github's systems to flag it and a customer service rep to decide it was not legitimate.

jessaustin 8y ago
There doesn't seem to be much going on there? Over 13 repos, there are like 5 issues, all open, with one response that seems to be from some other user who just randomly wandered in? There are a few commits and a couple of branches, but no releases. Also a couple really ancient forks. This looks like a random person's GitHub page, not a software company's. They also don't have any links to their GitHub pages on their site. This isn't how organizations normally use GitHub. One suspects they're just using it as a CDN without engaging with any of the coding or social features. Perhaps GitHub has some sort of trigger when particular resources get requested over and over without any referer? Why not just use GitHub normally? Failing that, why not just use a CDN?
- cannonedhamster 8y ago
  CDNs cost money. The whole point of most businesses lately seems to be externalizing costs while providing the least amount of service that they can get paid gobs of money for. I understand that's a sound business model in a race to the bottom, but eventually you hit the bottom and the whole market losses.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    They don't cost enough money to justify this whole embarrassing episode. Probably they're just a little bit harder to configure than it was to just dump everything on GitHub.
- rqs 8y ago
  But now, think this whole thing in this way: Should GitHub block them because of all that?
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    That's really up to GitHub. They have to weigh the cost of being the lazy dude-bro's CDN against the bother of dealing with entitled whinging like TFA. To be clear, they certainly are justified in blocking this user. GitHub is for collaborative development, not code distribution.

harryh 8y ago

Microsoft's acquisition of Github hasn't closed yet, so the company is still operating independently. There is no reason to think that this has anything to do with Microsoft. To be honest, it seems like a fairly simple mistake that was cleaned up within 48 hours. Certainly a pain in the ass, but these things happen.

bovermyer 8y ago
The Microsoft-fear in this article isn't justified. However, the author does point out several good practices: * Don't host your code only in one place * Don't host your services only in one provider * Don't host your backups only in one provider I suppose you could argue the second one, but the other two are important to follow.
- m-p-3 8y ago
  Yeah, treat code as any kind of data. If it's worth a lot of time and cannot be replaced easily, back it up.
- pvtmert 8y ago
  imho he mostly talks about vendor/provider lock-in.
jetti 8y ago
Also, let's not forget that there are outages with AWS as well that take down quite a few services [0]. To me, this post seems like an easy way to take a cheap shot at Microsoft and get their name out there while doing so. [0] https://www.recode.net/2017/3/2/14792636/amazon-aws-internet-outage-cause-human-error-incorrect-command https://www.recode.net/2017/3/2/14792636/amazon-aws-internet...
adrianmonk 8y ago
Is it even legal to allow the acquiring company to direct your activities before the deal closes? It seems like it could run afoul of anti-trust laws if you are functioning as one company in a situation where the merger might not get government approval. I also wonder if it could cause liability issues because, until the deal closes, you are obligated to do what your current owners want you to, not your hypothetical (but probable) future owners. Especially if you are a public company and those owners are shareholders that you probably have certain legal obligations toward.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]