megastep

5 ms·

1.
by megastep 11y ago
I would completely agree with you if that was the way GitHub presented that feature, being open about the consequences of adopting it. They haven't done that, and as a result their customers are not properly informed on the trade-offs
2.
by megastep 11y ago
It is not disingenuous if it is exactly what they are doing. The entire cause of this problem, and the reason it breaks so many things, is because they are trying to monetize bandwidth usage. This model is unsustainable because free users o
3.
by megastep 11y ago
I wouldn't have characterized that as evil per se, but the fact that they are just not disclosing these restrictions is at the very least a communications failure, if not a shady business practice. It would have been completely underst
4.
by megastep 11y ago
My argument was that this was actually bad for their business. This is not a customer-friendly move.
5.
by megastep 11y ago
Yes, my criticism was not that they're trying to make money from this, but rather that they are crippling their core product in an effort to monetize it some more.
6.
by megastep 11y ago
I do, actually. I just noticed that there was a large Kernel git repo hosted on Github, and figured it would make a good example of a large, popular repository. I'm not surprised Linus is not actually using Github, so my bad for not st
7.
by megastep 11y ago
The way I understand it, it should be possible, though it's more complicated since they seem to infer the LFS URL from the repo URL by default. So if you wanted to say keep your repo on Github, and store your LFS files on S3, you'
8.
by megastep 11y ago
I am the author and yes this was very much unapologetically hyperbolic. At least it got the conversation started.