Live data from Hacker News

Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

blog.bitbucket.org

111–120 of 292 posts

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#111

I just found out that bitbucket has unlimited private repos. That's one HUGE point for them on Github.

It looks like the limits are by number of users, which seems fairer. But they will probably make less money. I thought most of the projects on github were <5 people.

It depends. I can see a lot of scope for small companies starting on Bitbucket to take advantage of the low costs, and then buying the larger plans as they expand.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#112

So how do I browse projects that are hosted on BitBucket? How can I search for projects by language? All I see on the main page are screenshots and signup links. Why should I sign up if I can't even test drive the site by browsing existing projects? Would be nice to have an "Explore" feature similar to GitHub.

Here's a popular repo:

https://bitbucket.org/tortoisehg/hgtk/overview

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#113
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How long will it take for the private repos to be hacked? Would you put the company revenue generating jewels in there?

Do you think it's more or less likely to get hacked than private repositories on github (which are already trusted by many companies)? Before you answer, consider http://www.extremetech.com/computing/120981-github-hacked-mi...

Actually, that's why I brought it up. Unless the cost analysis justifies the risk, I wouldn't host a repo on bitbucket or github.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#114
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitbucket's self-hosted enterprise product Stash is priced aggressively. It's free for open source projects, non-profits and classrooms. For small teams (up to 10 users), it costs just $10/year, all in, and you get the source code. http://www.atlassian.com/software/stash/pricing Contrast with Github where the minimum purchase is 1 seat pack (up to 20 users), costing $5000/year, and you don't get any access to the the…

I am really curious: Why does getting access to the source code matter? (I am just asking since it seems to be a selling point, and I have never really modified the code of a tool that I have used. For example, how many people modify Eclipse, or Maven, or BugZilla's source code?)

Stash's internals are completely extensible. Having access to the source allows you to extend and modify it to fit your needs. On top of that, you can build features (i.e., plugins) on top of Stash that you can share or sell to other Stash users on Atlassian's Marketplace.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#115
post #8

For a while I was a bit worried that GitHub had just ran away with the prize and no one else was bothering. It is pretty obvious that Google isn't interested in improving Google Code and that Sourceforge hasn't aged a day (that's not really fair, but it feels like it). I think there is still a chance for BitBucket to make a splash, but I think its going to be hard to win anymore. That's fine, 2nd place makes a lot of…

Bitbucket's self-hosted enterprise product Stash is priced aggressively. It's free for open source projects, non-profits and classrooms. For small teams (up to 10 users), it costs just $10/year, all in, and you get the source code. http://www.atlassian.com/software/stash/pricing Contrast with Github where the minimum purchase is 1 seat pack (up to 20 users), costing $5000/year, and you don't get any access to the the…

I use RhodeCode for a small team (https://bitbucket.org/marcinkuzminski/rhodecode).

It does not have all the features of github or bitbucket but is selfhosting and opensource.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#116
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Github is just greedy. No, Github is a business. BitBucket is offering free private accounts as a loss leader, not out of the kindness of their hearts. This is their strategy for competing with GitHub. A $7/month subscription for private github repos is well worth it.

7$ a month for 5 private repos is not worth it all. I acknowledge that Github is a business but I am not about to pay a lot of money for hosting all my repositories, when I can do the same on Bitbucket for free. And when the team grows enough that I'd have to pay Bitbucket, I'll do so willingly.

If you consider $7 (or $12) a month a lot of money for software then you're probably not in the target audience for any (SaaS) software product. A lot of people are willing to pay some money for a SaaS product even when there are free alternatives.

I can't think of any piece of software I use regularly that doesn't cross the "worth at least $7 bucks" boundary.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#117
post #8

For a while I was a bit worried that GitHub had just ran away with the prize and no one else was bothering. It is pretty obvious that Google isn't interested in improving Google Code and that Sourceforge hasn't aged a day (that's not really fair, but it feels like it). I think there is still a chance for BitBucket to make a splash, but I think its going to be hard to win anymore. That's fine, 2nd place makes a lot of…

Bitbucket had a pretty easy time of winning my business: free private repositories for small teams is a great way to draw people in.

I was drawn in by Mercurial, went to GitHub when I switched to Git (the only thing that was holding me back, frankly) but left my private repositories on BitBucket, still in Mercurial. I shall be converting them to git and committing to sticking with BitBucket for all of my private repositories now!

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#118
post #8

For a while I was a bit worried that GitHub had just ran away with the prize and no one else was bothering. It is pretty obvious that Google isn't interested in improving Google Code and that Sourceforge hasn't aged a day (that's not really fair, but it feels like it). I think there is still a chance for BitBucket to make a splash, but I think its going to be hard to win anymore. That's fine, 2nd place makes a lot of…

They've got a good shot, because a lot of people need private repositories and do NOT need the social features of Github. They just need a basic git server to hold the master repository. For doing their work, the built-in tools of git are sufficient.

For such people, Github is ridiculously expensive, since their price is based on the number of repositories you have. For instance, at work we've got enough repositories (all small) that we'd need the $200/month Github plan. In terms of storage costs, that works out to about $10/megabyte/month.

That's 5 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more than the market rate for cloud storage. When you are selling something 5 orders of magnitude above the market rate, there is room for competitors.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#119
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like BitBucket better then Github. That should be than. Then is an order of operations type deal, eg: I read the new BitBucket blog post and *then* I signed up whereas than is things like greater than , less than , it's for comparisons. http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/thanthen.h...

So off topic, but... Has anyone ever tried to implement a 'crowd-correct' feature where a reader could do something like correct "then->than", and if enough users made the same correction (a couple high-rep users, or more low-rep users) it would stick. I supposed the biggest challenge would be user abuse -- changing even just one word can completely change the meaning of a comment, and yet the comment would still be…

The solution knocking around my head for this was a "sub-channel" for off-topic corrections to posts, so you can suggest a spelling or grammar alteration without a) cluttering the discussion or b) looking like a for calling them out.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#120
post #110
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've tried at least a dozen Git GUIs for both PC and Mac and SourceTree is by far my favorite.

Can you elaborate on why? I've found it to be far from intuitive and basically a direct mapping of CLI commands straight into UI elements. A user unfamiliar with command line git arguments would have a difficult time with SourceTree, I would imagine (most of my coworkers have).

One more datapoint: can't say I like SourceTree. Still looking for a Mercurial GUI worth using. My biggest issue is that I'm a big user of annotate/blame (I have a very bad memory so finding out where/how/why a given piece of code was created or evolved is something I do at least weekly if not daily) and all the hg guis have absolute shit annotate. They also tend to look rather bad.

GitX is pretty good (I think I still prefer the original one over the Laullon gitx, but the Laullon gitx has an acceptable annotate view and look nice), and surprisingly the best annotate view I've seen so far is in bazaar's qt-based UI. The tools are not necessarily great overall (and the OSX interactions are downright weird), but the annotate is excellent.

Post reply on HN