Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Tara 2.0 – Fast Jira alternative with automation based on Git events

tara.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 97 posts

Re: Show HN: Tara 2.0 – Fast Jira alternative with automation based on Git events

#61

Post by johschmitz »

saurik wrote: post #26
brightball wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the correct answer.

I guess if you assume that "small teams" are all working 100% on the one project... which isn't even slightly reasonable (hell: that isn't even reasonable for large teams). The per-user thing essentially means you are paying costs constantly for people who just need access to something as a contributor even though they are using it once a month. It is incredibly frustrating having to be like "ugh, I contracted with s…

Why not charge based on typical "packages" containing a certain number of interactions with the service?

Re: Show HN: Tara 2.0 – Fast Jira alternative with automation based on Git events

#63

Post by prpl »

dsr_ wrote: post #14

Can I self-host it? The only reason we're going to move away from JIRA is that Atlassian dropped server installs and is moving everyone to their cloud or datacenter products. Have a great conversion from JIRA and a reasonably-priced self-hosted option, we'll be looking at you in six months.

datacenter is an on-prem product though?

Re: Show HN: Tara 2.0 – Fast Jira alternative with automation based on Git events

#64

Post by jillesvangurp »

ddon wrote: post #5

Why startups don't try to break this charge per user per month thing? Would be great to have products which would charge like $10 a month for up to 5 users or so... why so greedy and charge 10 per user? So, if small team of 5..10 people, at $8 a month per user, is like $100 a month for single service. And if startup needs like 5..10 different services to pay, it becomes like a pretty good amount for paying for differ…

Very simple; at the prices you cite, the largest charge is the one you forgot about: people hours needed to maintain and setup these services. 100$ sounds like a lot but it's only 1-2 hours of development time per month; less if you are in a competitive market. And lets face it, it's never just 1 hour per month. Just spending a week or so setting this stuff up could fund years of SAAS bills potentially in terms of time spent. And a week is not a lot.

You also get this sunk cost fallacy where you basically keep on poring in more time (and money) because you've already invested so much. Self hosted commodity services only makes sense these days if you have too much money or very specific needs that you are willing to pay for. Even at their premium pricing, they are a pretty good value proposition for most companies.

Asana on the freemium layer is still pretty good value and an easy upgrade once your team grows. Same for github. We pay for neither. Github comes with Github actions too with lots of free CI minutes per month. The Slack freemium layer is pretty decent as well (more than enough for any startup). I'd consider paying for all of the above if I had to because these products are kind of nice to use as well. But I don't. 0$ / month is a pretty hard price to beat.

But even at hundreds per month, self hosting would still cost more and deliver less.

Re: Show HN: Tara 2.0 – Fast Jira alternative with automation based on Git events

#65

Post by detaro »

prpl wrote: post #63
dsr_ wrote: post #14

Can I self-host it? The only reason we're going to move away from JIRA is that Atlassian dropped server installs and is moving everyone to their cloud or datacenter products. Have a great conversion from JIRA and a reasonably-priced self-hosted option, we'll be looking at you in six months.

datacenter is an on-prem product though?

Sure, at absolutely stupid price increases especially for smaller orgs. It starts at $42,000 a year... Also known as 840$ per user if you have 50 users.

Re: Show HN: Tara 2.0 – Fast Jira alternative with automation based on Git events

#66

Post by robertlagrant »

syed99 wrote: post #33
shagie wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of orgs have various regulatory constraints. For much of public sector, you're either going to need to be able to have it hosted on AWS GovCloud or allow the organization to self host it on their own servers.

Thanks for the clarification, there’s definitely a pathway for us to allow for this in the near future. I think it’s a safer path than running after industry specific compliances.

Working in a regulated industry, shipping (e.g.) some docker images and a Helm chart is definitely preferable!

Re: Show HN: Tara 2.0 – Fast Jira alternative with automation based on Git events

#67

Post by robertlagrant »

johschmitz wrote: post #61
saurik wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess if you assume that "small teams" are all working 100% on the one project... which isn't even slightly reasonable (hell: that isn't even reasonable for large teams). The per-user thing essentially means you are paying costs constantly for people who just need access to something as a contributor even though they are using it once a month. It is incredibly frustrating having to be like "ugh, I contracted with s…

Why not charge based on typical "packages" containing a certain number of interactions with the service?

This sort of thing is pretty annoying to procure. Imagine you have 20 suppliers and they all have bespoke pricing arrangements, vs you have 20 suppliers, who each charge you X per active user per month.

Re: Show HN: Tara 2.0 – Fast Jira alternative with automation based on Git events

#68

Post by andy_ppp »

dsr_ wrote: post #38
syed99 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its definitely something we've been exploring when putting our product roadmap together. I'm curious though, if we had a private cloud instance vs self hosted? I'd love to understand why self hosted would be the option you'd go for.

Our security policy doesn't let us put confidential information into other people's hands unless they are willing to commit to the full value of damages from a breach on their side. It's a great question to differentiate sales critters: the new ones are sure that they can work something out; the middle ones are dubious; the experienced people chuckle and disengage politely.

Are any external suppliers stupid enough to agree to this? Isn’t it basically writing you an unlimited cheque if someone hosting your data gets hacked?

Re: Show HN: Tara 2.0 – Fast Jira alternative with automation based on Git events

#69

Post by a-dub »

i'm just going to throw out a few questions asking if features i wish these kinds of systems had are in here. maybe they are, and if they aren't, hopefully it's helpful!

what is the workflow like for going from a commit id (ala git-blame) to all available discussion and context around that change?

is there any sort of unified search through history that shows both changes and all discussion/context around them? (pull requests, kanban cards, related issues and prs, design docs/sketches/etc, slack threads)

is there any workflow/smarts for detecting recurring issues/bugs/fixes?

i used to ask "can you drive most of it by email" ... i guess these days it's "can you drive most of it by chat integration?"

Re: Show HN: Tara 2.0 – Fast Jira alternative with automation based on Git events

#70

Post by vladvasiliu »

syed99 wrote: post #46
korginator wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the response, though my question was more about whether you've thought through how your webhooks based approach can work through VPNs. For example, one of the organisations I work with uses a CheckPoint capsule VPN with some non-standard configuration that's controlled by their IT department that manages and supports client workstations. To even access the Git server requires the user to be connected throu…

Thanks for clarifying. Yes this would be fairly different and requires an extra layer or configuration on our backend. You’re absolutely right about following the same route to the server per user and since our current configuration allows a workspace level workflow, we would have to write some middleware to handle this use case. You are absolutely right about a self hosted solution being the better workaround which…

For those kinds of situations, I've seen SaaS companies offer some kind of internal "connector", which could then establish an outgoing connection to a known domain, thus allowing the IT dept. to limit the access as they require.
Post reply on HN