3 ms·
> I would submit that this change is entirely business-related Developers working on it have said it's due to performance reasons. I don't have a link handy, b
by arp242 2y ago
> I would submit that this change is entirely business-related
Developers working on it have said it's due to performance reasons. I don't have a link handy, but it's in some HN thread.
- amiga386 2y agoThey claimed the new search requires logins due to performance reasons... they have no reason, other than they want to use both the carrot and the stick in driving signups and logins, to take away their existing search, the one they didn't have a problem offering for 16 years, completely.
- arp242 2y agoSo those people are outright lying through their teeth? Got it. You're just reasoning from negativity and cynicism. No evidence for anything. Other than "zomg they're bad".
- amiga386 2y agoI didn't say they were lying. It can be true that their new search is better but costlier to run. They can focus on that in their PR, along with how shiny and new the shiny new search is, to distract you that they are removing anonymous search and making the site worse. Nobody made them turn off the old search, they chose that, and they bundled the two together in one PR push. Fancy new search = carrot. Remove anonymous search = stick. Carrot and stick work together to drive more signups, more logins, more data tracked, more data sales, more money.
- pcl 2y agoI completely understand where they're coming from. Maintaining two separate search stacks for different user groups sounds like a nightmare. Multiply that by every feature that increases in complexity enough to bubble up on the cost-center metrics, and it for sure makes sense to prune complexity at the cost of secondary-feature functionality for anonymous requests.
- Alupis 2y agoBesides all of that - Github has zero obligation to provide Free services to users, let alone non-users. The person you are responding to doesn't even want to make a free account yet expects to be able to use all of Github's services for free. That's some wild entitlement. The disconnect here is unreal...
- fragmede 2y agoSame with Twitter, tbh
- pelasaco 2y agoIts not hard to understand why a service like exercism has no money. People want everything for free
- nicce 2y ago> The person you are responding to doesn't even want to make a free account yet expects to be able to use all of Github's services for free. To be fair, definition of free depends. OPs argument was that they pay with data. That is not free if you think that you lose something. It is different question do we value it similarly.
- Alupis 2y agoOk then, so that's like going to a restaurant and complaining the food costs money. Metaphoric "duh".
- Dylan16807 2y agoThat's not accurate. GitHub is still getting lots of data from people without accounts, and providing open access helps them get more users in general. If we have to do a restaurant analogy, it's like going to a restaurant (buffet?), opting out of premium, and still wanting access to a particular food item. It's not automatically ridiculous.
- smcnally 2y agoI don’t begrudge them requesting an authorized user account for some cases. YMMV. They balance this against allowing more open access to other projects, features and functions. Their balanced approach seems reasonable.
- inferiorhuman 2y agoThe developers have also said that the new UI is an improvement. And yet…