I found the same thing, the whole article is incredibly weak. He asked with a sort of cocky, corporate assumption that I too was as appalled as he was at the b

I found the same thing, the whole article is incredibly weak. He asked with a sort of cocky, corporate assumption that I too was as appalled as he was at the blantant disregard for security [...] it was clear from the way he was talking about version control that he longed for the days of centralized control where one guy had to manually merge in everyone’s changesets There is a gigantic gulf between being appalled at github's security and wanting to go back to the days one guy was merging all changes by hand. it wouldn’t be tough to convince some manager-type that this Github thing does deserve a second-look. Maybe thats because it is worth taking a second look? Who's going to be convinced by a laundry list that boils down to "shit happens, luckily nothing bad happened this one time and it could never be completely catastrophic"? Thats a incredibly low bar to set. I love github, its well tailored to be a host for an open-source master, but not for private stuff; even if we were willing to host internal services outside the trusted network, I certainly couldn't trust github.