https://zimbatm.github.io/hostnames-and-usernames-to-reserve...

But why hide behind the shroud of "privacy and security" if that is the case? I'd happily relinquish (not that I have much choice in the matter) the name if it was a namespace clash.

It sucks that they're making you change your name and it's obviously inconvenient. They've at least offered some kind of compensation.

It looks like you lucked out that there's no activity or repositories linked to it that would break from the change.

This seems like a lot of fuss for nothing.

> These seems like a lot of fuss for nothing.

I wrote as much at the end of the post.

> I just want to know why.

I'd wager more than a few people at Github are scratching their heads, wondering if the article's author's IQ is higher than a shoe size.

Their intentions are not obvious to me, and I have asked both publicly and privately (individuals that I know within github).

> wondering if the article's author's IQ is higher than a shoe size.

Wow, really?

I agree. I just wanted to know! But, as the replies on this post have shown, the only thing you get for asking questions that you don't have the answer to is vitriol and ridicule on HN.

I write technical posts that require lots of experimentation, time and research, and no one gives a shit. I write a rant-y blog post on Friday night about something trivial that I found frustrating and suddenly I'm a moron with an IQ the size of my shoe that is a waste of human life.

Hacker News is a fucked up place.

Used to be nice around these parts. Unfortunately, it is rapidly going the way of Reddit. I have yet to find a community that allows downvoting to remain a nice place. Sooner or later, the quality of conversation goes downhill.

It is very possible that one day there will be another URL they need which belongs to a large account that can not be renamed just like that.

domain.com/user/foo or user.domain.com/foo or even a different domain for user accounts. Github put themselves into that position.

Does it matter now?

Yelp has something even more uncomfortable to maintain - custom subdomains [1]

[0] https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/#m-...

[1] https://food.yelp.com/

Or just tell him and be done with it.

I think the account name has a potential to cause public confusion. This may result in negative consequences to github, the github community and the public itself.

This is immaterial to you. Let it go.

(For anyone who likes analogies, it’s like having a “dummy corpse” on the front lawn, left over from halloween).

what I can't understand is why https://github.com/hacker is okay. Or why https://github.com/blackhat is also an account. Or https://github.com/virus.

Unless each one of those accounts is also being changed/removed, and I'm simply the first one to point this out.

I’ll rephrase the question: in a set of things that I consider to be similar why is one handled differently that the others?

And the answer arises from the question: the sets are based on a different criteria.

I don’t know what criteria github uses, but, I know that external input usually groups sets differently.

Put simpler - maybe someone complied?

(Analogy, “dummy corpse””, skeleton” and “sheet ghost” may seem similar on haloween night, but may get different reaction from the public)

Hopefully I'll soon find out what the criteria are, if this is the case!

If a company is contacting a customer, don't play that line. Be honest. If the reason why you can't be honest is due to embarrassment, don't phrase it as a request. Mealy-mouthed language about empty, unverifiable platitudes is not only pointless, it's insulting in a technical context.

Where does the line get drawn the OP asks? I'm unsure, but I believe in Github to make a smart call there. Not every situation is a slippery slope to facism / dictatorships, and I'm unsure why many things nowadays are described with this sort of notion attached to them.

Definitely feel like I wasted time reading this whole thing, and now wasted time posting, and now I'm sad.

True, but github could have avoided this kind of issue all together by putting all accounts under a different namespace or domain. In fact that's what they should do now to be "future proof". I don't understand why would any business think that domain.com/username is the right thing to do.

Edit: To clarify, looking back it's simple to just make such assumptions. But many popular sites have existed off of this model which github holds such as facebook, twitter, myspace back in the day IIRC. I'm not saying Github made the perfect decision at the time, but they didn't make a foolish one necesarily given the landscape of how user based sites have existed.

Also, they could always just prefix their pages instead. (ie, github.com/about/xxx, github.com/info/xxx).

Github has been served with a confidential court order, warrant etc that requires this.

Github has a confidential contract with a large company or government entity and they are requiring this as part of that contract.

A piece of existing malware in the wild points to this address for a possible command and control server or verification that it's in a VM or whatever, and they want to deal with it, like that guy that registered those nonsense urls.

> Github has been served with a confidential court order, warrant etc that requires this.

I thought of this, but figured since the account was essentially bare of public activity it was low probability.

> Github has a confidential contract with a large company or government entity and they are requiring this as part of that contract.

An interesting idea!

> A piece of existing malware in the wild points to this address for a possible command and control server or verification that it's in a VM or whatever, and they want to deal with it, like that guy that registered those nonsense urls.

Very possible, although putting 'malware' in your CnC endpoint name might not be the brightest of ideas :)

This doesn't outrage me in the slightest.

> Github don't owe you an explanation for asking to change your username for whatever reason (even though it is obvious in this case) on a free service that you have been using.

Of course they don't owe me an explanation. But does that stop me from trying to figure it out with a public blog post?

And what if I had been a paying user for the `malware` account? Would that suddenly make this forced name change not okay? I've paid Github probably north of $1,000 over the lifetime of my personal account. Would that make a difference?

I'm going to have to side with GitHub on this one.

EDIT: Not really sure why downvotes (-2 at time of this edit update) are heading my way here, mind chiming in and contributing to the conversation then?

I agree, it's a bummer that they're taking that cool username away, but it's not surprising or wrong.

EDIT: as of writing this comment the account has 0 repos, 1 starred repo, and 1 follower.

Why not? What about the (currently in use) github user names such as `hacker` or `virus`?

The whole point of the account was to publish things that I didn't deem worthy of my other accounts. Having a terrible name was kind of the point.

Not sure, but I wouldn't be shocked if they are at risk themselves, those aren't exactly great either. I'm also not GitHub, nor do I care if they end up getting in trouble for those names either.

> The whole point of the account was to publish things that I didn't deem worthy of my other accounts.

Then you shouldn't really be concerned what is or isn't your GitHub username then.

> Having a terrible name was kind of the point.

And thus "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" ended up being the result. QED.

Perhaps because your post comes across as mostly subjective value judgements, with a sprinkling of holier-then-thou between the lines?

The HN rules ask that you don't discuss these, even if they are cowardly. Corrective upvotes will occur (and have occurred here).

I'm not sure I understand your comment. I could not find github's username blacklist, so I don't think it's "transparently obvious", but if there is a blacklist feel free to share it.