5 ms·

Just sign in, problem solved. It baffles me that a site can provide a useful service that costs money to run, and all you need to do to use it is create a free

Just sign in, problem solved. It baffles me that a site can provide a useful service that costs money to run, and all you need to do to use it is create a free account -- and people still find that egregious.

soraminazuki 1y ago
That's not how consent works. GitHub captured the open source ecosystem under the premise that its code and issue tracker will remain open to all. Silently changing the deal afterwards is reprehensible.
- arkh 1y ago
  Who could have known that Microsoft would pull some shenanigans? Is 20 years too long ago to learn from then? Embrace. Extend. Extinguish. This has never gone away.
  - IsTom 1y ago
    When github was getting popular it was not owned by MS.
    - 6031769 1y ago
      When github did not pull this sort of shenanigans it was not owned by MS.
- naikrovek 1y ago
  > GitHub captured the open source ecosystem under the premise that its code and issue tracker will remain open to all. Silently changing the deal afterwards is reprehensible. It still is "open to all", but you can't abuse the service and expect to retain the ability to abuse the service. Also where is "silently" coming from? This whole HN page is because someone linked to an article announcing the change... I'm not really a fan of Microsoft anymore, but some of you have (apparently long ago) turned the corner into "anything Microsoft does that I don't want Microsoft to do is clearly Microsoft being evil" and that is simply not a reality-based viewpoint. sometimes Microsoft is doing something which one could consider "evil", but without knowledge that something evil is happening, you're assuming that evil is happening, and that's not really a valid way to think about things if you want to be heard by anyone.
  - soraminazuki 1y ago
    I repeat, this didn't start today. It has been happening for years. And no, browsing a few files or searching for an issue or two, which they totally kick in the rate limit for, isn't "abuse."
    - naikrovek 1y ago
      They don’t rate limit someone who is browsing with a normal usage pattern. They did for a day or two, then discovered their mistake and fixed it. > years No. > a few I’ve always considered “a few” to be “between 3 and 12” and 60 is more than “a few”.
      - soraminazuki 1y ago
        I'm speaking from direct experience over the past few years, from my home, work, and outside with a phone. Do you actually browse GitHub anonymously, or are you reflexively shifting blame? If you need more proof, this is last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39322838 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39322838 And this is another year before that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36254129 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36254129 Oh look, there's even visual proof in the discussion: https://imgur.com/a/github-search-gated-behind-login-BT6uRIe https://imgur.com/a/github-search-gated-behind-login-BT6uRIe
        naikrovek 1y ago
        Yes I actually browse GitHub anonymously. Not always but I do it every day. Never once had a problem. In another browser I log in because I do work with code in GitHub frequently. I comment on issues and PRs and all the normal stuff. I regularly drive two browsers, yes. I alternate between them multiple times per minute, often. In one, I am not logged in. In the other, I am logged in. Not once have I hit any anonymous rate limit. I respect one’s desire to use something without logging in, that’s fine. But what you do when you use up the free tier of a service is one of the following: A) you pay for the next tier, B) you (in this case) log in so that your usage is no longer considered “anonymous”, or C) you wait for the next usage measurement period to begin so that you can resume. It’s their service and they can decide how they want to provide it, in the exact same way that you can decide how to provide any services that you might provide. If it is your privacy that you are considering by not having an account, fine. By making that choice you are limiting yourself to whatever the services you use decide to give you, and you are entitled to nothing. “I could do more in the past!” So what? They decided to let you do more in the past, and now they’ve decided to let you do less. They don’t owe you free services; you choose to use the free service and by doing so you’ve chosen to be bound by any usage caps that they decide to apply to you. Nobody owes you free services AT ALL, but you’re getting them anyway. Instead of feeling entitled to more than you’re getting, maybe be thankful for what you have.
- brookst 1y ago
  Are all contributors to open source under a lifetime obligation to never change their level of investment? Kind of a rhetorical question I guess, for a while I maintained a small open source project and yes, I still get entitled “why did you even publish this if you’re not going to fix the bug I reported” comments. Like, sorry, but my life priorities changed over the intervening 15 years. Fork it and fix it.
  - jnky 1y ago
    All contributors to open source are not created equal. It is different when a literal 3 trillion dollar company does it, thus demonstrating they were unworthy of the trust and goodwill put in them. They have the money, they have the cloud infrastructure, they are doing all kinds of scraping themselves.
  - soraminazuki 1y ago
    Microsoft didn't just give, they're benefitting massively from open source. And they're looking to extract even more value through data mining from forced logins and stealing GPL licensed code by laundering it using AI. There's no room for sympathy here.
    - brookst 1y ago
      There’s no sympathy in business. It’s a straw man to claim I’m looking for some emotional response. But there is obligation. I’m asking if contributing to open source creates an obligation to do so forever, either for individuals or companies.

soraminazuki 1y ago

That's not how consent works. GitHub captured the open source ecosystem under the premise that its code and issue tracker will remain open to all. Silently changing the deal afterwards is reprehensible.

arkh 1y ago
Who could have known that Microsoft would pull some shenanigans? Is 20 years too long ago to learn from then? Embrace. Extend. Extinguish. This has never gone away.
- IsTom 1y ago
  When github was getting popular it was not owned by MS.
  - 6031769 1y ago
    When github did not pull this sort of shenanigans it was not owned by MS.
naikrovek 1y ago
> GitHub captured the open source ecosystem under the premise that its code and issue tracker will remain open to all. Silently changing the deal afterwards is reprehensible. It still is "open to all", but you can't abuse the service and expect to retain the ability to abuse the service. Also where is "silently" coming from? This whole HN page is because someone linked to an article announcing the change... I'm not really a fan of Microsoft anymore, but some of you have (apparently long ago) turned the corner into "anything Microsoft does that I don't want Microsoft to do is clearly Microsoft being evil" and that is simply not a reality-based viewpoint. sometimes Microsoft is doing something which one could consider "evil", but without knowledge that something evil is happening, you're assuming that evil is happening, and that's not really a valid way to think about things if you want to be heard by anyone.
- soraminazuki 1y ago
  I repeat, this didn't start today. It has been happening for years. And no, browsing a few files or searching for an issue or two, which they totally kick in the rate limit for, isn't "abuse."
  - naikrovek 1y ago
    They don’t rate limit someone who is browsing with a normal usage pattern. They did for a day or two, then discovered their mistake and fixed it. > years No. > a few I’ve always considered “a few” to be “between 3 and 12” and 60 is more than “a few”.
    - soraminazuki 1y ago
      I'm speaking from direct experience over the past few years, from my home, work, and outside with a phone. Do you actually browse GitHub anonymously, or are you reflexively shifting blame? If you need more proof, this is last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39322838 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39322838 And this is another year before that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36254129 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36254129 Oh look, there's even visual proof in the discussion: https://imgur.com/a/github-search-gated-behind-login-BT6uRIe https://imgur.com/a/github-search-gated-behind-login-BT6uRIe
      - naikrovek 1y ago
        Yes I actually browse GitHub anonymously. Not always but I do it every day. Never once had a problem. In another browser I log in because I do work with code in GitHub frequently. I comment on issues and PRs and all the normal stuff. I regularly drive two browsers, yes. I alternate between them multiple times per minute, often. In one, I am not logged in. In the other, I am logged in. Not once have I hit any anonymous rate limit. I respect one’s desire to use something without logging in, that’s fine. But what you do when you use up the free tier of a service is one of the following: A) you pay for the next tier, B) you (in this case) log in so that your usage is no longer considered “anonymous”, or C) you wait for the next usage measurement period to begin so that you can resume. It’s their service and they can decide how they want to provide it, in the exact same way that you can decide how to provide any services that you might provide. If it is your privacy that you are considering by not having an account, fine. By making that choice you are limiting yourself to whatever the services you use decide to give you, and you are entitled to nothing. “I could do more in the past!” So what? They decided to let you do more in the past, and now they’ve decided to let you do less. They don’t owe you free services; you choose to use the free service and by doing so you’ve chosen to be bound by any usage caps that they decide to apply to you. Nobody owes you free services AT ALL, but you’re getting them anyway. Instead of feeling entitled to more than you’re getting, maybe be thankful for what you have.
brookst 1y ago
Are all contributors to open source under a lifetime obligation to never change their level of investment? Kind of a rhetorical question I guess, for a while I maintained a small open source project and yes, I still get entitled “why did you even publish this if you’re not going to fix the bug I reported” comments. Like, sorry, but my life priorities changed over the intervening 15 years. Fork it and fix it.
- jnky 1y ago
  All contributors to open source are not created equal. It is different when a literal 3 trillion dollar company does it, thus demonstrating they were unworthy of the trust and goodwill put in them. They have the money, they have the cloud infrastructure, they are doing all kinds of scraping themselves.
- soraminazuki 1y ago
  Microsoft didn't just give, they're benefitting massively from open source. And they're looking to extract even more value through data mining from forced logins and stealing GPL licensed code by laundering it using AI. There's no room for sympathy here.
  - brookst 1y ago
    There’s no sympathy in business. It’s a straw man to claim I’m looking for some emotional response. But there is obligation. I’m asking if contributing to open source creates an obligation to do so forever, either for individuals or companies.