How uncharitable can a single blog post be! The entire post is discredited by the author repeatedly projecting his unfounded opinions onto GitHub, such as
"My guess is that some high-level greedy marketing dickwad, completely unaware of the asinine implications of his brilliant idea, signed off on this dumb-as-a-bag-of-rocks pricing model."
"All the marketing material pimping GitHub’s LFS support [...]. I do not believe this is unintentional."
"This is completely batshit. The side effect of this pernicious, greedy pricing model is to [...]"
"I honestly couldn’t believe that GitHub would be willing to do something that shortsighted, visibly motivated by greed from the cash they thought they could extract from some of their users".
Charitable explanation for forks not working: they haven't yet written the code to make this work with forks, and it's better to ship something working early, than to make it work in all cases.
Charitable explanation for charging for bandwith: bandwidth costs money. (I believe this is a real problem for Dropbox, which doesn't charge for bandwidth but must still pay for it). Also, all CDNs, and also AWS charge for bandwidth.
Overall, while GitHub may be able to support it's OSS folks better by changing the pricing on some parts of its product, this post is incredibly uncharitable. I hope the OP will consider removing the unfounded narrative that he's projecting onto GitHub (esp the "marketing dickwad" thing - wtf) and focus on the facts.
[Disclaimer: my company partners with GitHub on lots of stuff]
Comments
How uncharitable can a single blog post be! The entire post is discredited by the author repeatedly projecting his unfounded opinions onto GitHub, such as
"My guess is that some high-level greedy marketing dickwad, completely unaware of the asinine implications of his brilliant idea, signed off on this dumb-as-a-bag-of-rocks pricing model."
"All the marketing material pimping GitHub’s LFS support [...]. I do not believe this is unintentional."
"This is completely batshit. The side effect of this pernicious, greedy pricing model is to [...]"
"I honestly couldn’t believe that GitHub would be willing to do something that shortsighted, visibly motivated by greed from the cash they thought they could extract from some of their users".
Charitable explanation for forks not working: they haven't yet written the code to make this work with forks, and it's better to ship something working early, than to make it work in all cases.
Charitable explanation for charging for bandwith: bandwidth costs money. (I believe this is a real problem for Dropbox, which doesn't charge for bandwidth but must still pay for it). Also, all CDNs, and also AWS charge for bandwidth.
Overall, while GitHub may be able to support it's OSS folks better by changing the pricing on some parts of its product, this post is incredibly uncharitable. I hope the OP will consider removing the unfounded narrative that he's projecting onto GitHub (esp the "marketing dickwad" thing - wtf) and focus on the facts.
[Disclaimer: my company partners with GitHub on lots of stuff]