131–140 of 198 posts
Same feature set as http://repositoryhosting.com with a higher price point (they're at $6/month now for 2GB). They don't have a CLI or anything as far as I know but they do offer more storage space at $1/GB/month which is pretty nice if you just need a little extra.
Also, they offer git, mercurial and SVN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're reading a lot into one assumption you've made. I'm a grad student. I try out lots of little things. I want to keep them, but I don't want them just on my hard drive (I like them to be available on the Internets). GitHub forces me to open-source those small projects, and I'm usually fine with this, but lots of other people aren't. And if he can offer it for $9, then why shouldn't he? Your complaint is that his…
"I really don't see why you are knocking the OP for making something that fits his (and presumably others) needs." I'm making the case that it doesn't fit his needs, since his reluctance of paying the GitHub price is an example of this: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/apps
How does a reference to someone finding little friction to paying multiple tens to hundreds of dollars for things while cringing at a 99-cent expenditure have anything to do with this?
GitHub bothers me, to be honest. I read a lot lately about how many people are using GitHub as a sort of "programmer's portfolio", and, more importantly, how many startups are asking for your GitHub URL as a part of your resume package. As if how many active repos on GitHub you have is some sort of even remotely useful metric as to how good a programmer you are. There's a lot of pressure to have a strong presence on GitHub, while their product offering doesn't seem to meet the needs of a lot of people. Not to mention there's tons of talent that uses hg or bzr as their VCS of choice; nobody asks for your bitbucket or launchpad URL.
I just use bitbucket.org + Mercurial. More than enough for personal projects, or more, given that it's unlimited. The only limit is amount of users. Switching to Hg was a bit of work, but I've actually learned to like it more than Git. Really though, it's the same kind of thing and I just use both. So I ended up at bitbucket for the same reasons OP built a new site. My way was quicker though.
I use github for the network effects, but how does hg compare to git, speed-wise? I switched to git from bzr because bzr felt awesomely slow, although git is a real pain to use, even when you're familiar with it. I understand that bzr and hg are almost identical, command-wise, but hg is about as fast as git, is that correct? What my workflow consists of is diffs/statuses/commits/pushes/pulls in projects with working…
Git is a great tool for what it was built for and the group of users it was intended for--that is, rapid, tons-of-merges-and-pulls development on a gigantic codebase, for users for whom it is acceptable for man pages to serve as reminders rather than instructions. However, I appreciate the additional attention paid to tooling and user-friendliness in Mercurial-land that make it more pleasant for me to use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody says that! I love Github. I used to have a paid account. I still have 100+ repositories in there. I just can't afford Github for my private repositories, which I think it's not for me anymore.
If you've got 40 private repos, I assume you're at the very least a moderately experienced professional programmer. Let's say for the sake of a figure that you charge a low price of $50 per hour. So buying a GitHub Gold account is like two hours of extra work per month for you, and you'll probably have to spend more than that on CodePlane (as a user, not developer) because it's simply not as battle-tested and extensi…
Also, git annoys me. Thus, Bitbucket, and life is good.
* - Which is to say, source/diff browsing, a markdown-based wiki for some projects, and that's it. Github has a lot of features, but it also has a lot of completely useless features.
Works pretty well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I really don't see why you are knocking the OP for making something that fits his (and presumably others) needs." I'm making the case that it doesn't fit his needs, since his reluctance of paying the GitHub price is an example of this: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/apps
I don't see the parallel. Quite the opposite; he's displeased with what he sees as GitHub's high price for their lowest-tier paid account, and developed an alternative that costs less and offers more of the "bare bones" stuff (more space, unlimited private repos) instead of focusing on the higher-level collaboration tools and web interfaces. How does a reference to someone finding little friction to paying multiple t…
And I'm arguing that his displeasure with GitHub's price comes from the fact that he's underestimating the extra amount of time he will have to spend as a user of CodePlane because CodePlane is not remotely as polished as GitHub. I'm arguing that this extra amount of time will not be worth the difference in price.
"[...] developed an alternative that costs less and offers more of the "bare bones" stuff (more space, unlimited private repos) instead of focusing on the higher-level collaboration tools and web interfaces. [...]"
It's not just collaboration and web stuff, it's reliability and security. Would you seriously trust a tiny service like CodePlane to store your code? Both ensuring it won't be deleted and that it won't be hacked into? If DropBox has trouble with those issues, would you trust a low-budget one-man-operation with your 50 repos?
"[...] There's a lot of pressure to have a strong presence on GitHub [...]"
When people evaluate programmers they often have to rely on far-from-perfect metrics, like university credentials. Putting emphasis on GitHub and ignoring the other forges is not ideal, but it's such a big improvement over the old ways. It's hard to get new metrics accepted into the mainstream.
I don't understand this use case: These projects are mainly side projects, or small freelance jobs I've done through the years, and I want to save them for posterity; who knows when I'll need them, right? My solution to this problem is called tar . Just clone the Git repos to /tmp, tar up the results, and push the tarball to S3. Done. Archived for posterity for a few cents per month. This isn't SVN anymore: It doesn'…
Technically, yes.. waving your command line wand IS a solution. But also, technically, there isn't any reason why you shouldn't be able to keep 100+ small remote git repositories active for less than $100/month. Also, Github doesn't require you to know how to use tar, S3, or have any other Linux experience. So why should this particular use case? Why wouldn't a business be able to cater to that market? This is a busi…
You don't need tar to package a git versioned project.
All you need is some kind of zip program, and every major OS has one built in.
The difference knowledge it requires to just zip up a directory and send it in an email, versus running a github connection is so minimal its laughable that anyone suggests that you need some kind of web interface in order to unburden yourself.
> This is a business, and as such, should be measured as one.
I think that this is a solution chasing a problem. However, lets assume that it is a viable business.
The beauty of github was ease of sharing, and the web interface. If you take away the web interface and don't need to share then what's the value proposition here?
All you're getting out of this project is backups of your local git repo. And you know what.... tar is pretty damn competitive when it comes to that arena.
Same feature set as http://repositoryhosting.com with a higher price point (they're at $6/month now for 2GB). They don't have a CLI or anything as far as I know but they do offer more storage space at $1/GB/month which is pretty nice if you just need a little extra.