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

Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

blog.bitbucket.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 292 posts

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#131

Post by nivloc »

kkowalczyk wrote: post #100
matwood wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

free private repositories for small teams is a great way to draw people in. Same thing here. I used to pay for github for a private repo for code to a couple of apps I sell. Once I found BB, it was a no brainer to switch over.

If free private repos is the only thing that BitBucket offers over GitHub, then they'll not be in business for long. You cost them money.

It's a different way to price products - they charge per user. So, if your little startup starts growing, they bring in a bit of cash and have opportunities to up-sell with the other products in their line.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#132

Post by csomar »

tzs wrote: post #118
bryanh wrote: 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…

5 orders of magnitude will result in $1million/month.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#133

Post by csomar »

bitcartel wrote: post #70
bryanh wrote: 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 think it's targeted to startups who want to do costs savings. As they'll probably retain them when they grow, the pricing goes 180 times more expensive for the next plan. It's still a lot cheaper than Github, though.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#134

Post by Osiris »

mitjak wrote: post #110
Osiris wrote: 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).

basically a direct mapping of CLI commands straight into UI elements

That may be some of the reason that I like it. I am able to do a lot of the things that I could do from the command line, but with a visual interface to help me visualize what's going on.

For example, when I'm doing a commit, I can click on each file that's been modified and see the diff for that file right on the side. I can then stage all or just parts of the changes. So if I have some debug lines, I can stage the file and then unstage the debug logging so it doesn't get committed.

There's just a lot of little things like that that you CAN do with the git command line yourself, but it wraps up in a way that's easier to consume.

I'd have to take more time than I have now to write up a full review of what I like about it compared to other GUIs.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#135

Post by csomar »

bitcartel wrote: post #70
bryanh wrote: 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 think it's targeted to startups who want to do costs savings. As they'll probably retain them when they grow, the pricing goes 180 times more expensive for the next plan. It's still a lot cheaper than Github, though.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#136

Post by doublerebel »

masklinn wrote: post #128
doublerebel wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly my point -- these 'new' Bitbucket features are a blatant clone of Github as well. I was expecting more from all the fanfare. For instance, users are clamoring to be able to link external issue trackers of their choice (which can be done simply by URL). I think the first host to supply that feature will have a step up.

> these 'new' Bitbucket features are a blatant clone of Github as well I think you misplaced the word "some". Inline pull-request comments are ripped off gh, but I've never seen arbitrary commit diffs there, it certainly isn't in the UI. The branch selector yes, the overview not at all. The UI organization has also, if anything, moved further away from Github's.

Arbitrary commit diffs have been in Github since March 2010 [1]. The Overview is exactly like what Redmine and GitLab call 'Activity' [2]. Github has Activity in a different manner, through notifications and the News Feed. These are useful features, but they are not innovative.

[1] https://github.com/blog/612-introducing-github-compare-view

[2] http://www.redmine.org/projects/redmine/activity

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#137

Post by jonknee »

kkowalczyk wrote: post #100
matwood wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

free private repositories for small teams is a great way to draw people in. Same thing here. I used to pay for github for a private repo for code to a couple of apps I sell. Once I found BB, it was a no brainer to switch over.

If free private repos is the only thing that BitBucket offers over GitHub, then they'll not be in business for long. You cost them money.

BitBucket has already been in business for a long time, it appears GitHub is not a fan of free private repos. In the early stages that was probably a help because your site looks more active if everyone using it is public, but these days the lack of free private repos is pretty surprising.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#138

Post by trentmb »

bitcartel wrote: post #129
kybernetikos wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The crown jewels should always be kept under lock and key! A couple of years ago I was at one of the Github drink meetups. I asked if they were working on encrypted private repos (this was just before or around the time Github Firewall was introduced). A Github employee told me no… before adding that in his opinion source code was not valuable. I asked him to clarify and he said imagine if Twitter had their source co…

Twitter is a service.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#139

Post by jonknee »

csomar wrote: post #132
tzs wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

5 orders of magnitude will result in $1million/month.

Perhaps you misread the OP, but he mentioned megabyte not gigabyte. S3 costs $.125 per GB for the first TB, so the math would be: (.125/1024)(10101010*10) which comes out to $12.21, or pretty darn close.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#140

Post by jonknee »

gfosco wrote: post #123
LordIllidan wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's worth it to me.... I pay for 10 private repos, and GitHub is one of my favorite tools. I don't like free services.

You're certainly able to pay for BitBucket, it's just that they don't require you to pay until you reach a team of 6 people. You can pay $10 a month to BitBucket and be able to have a team of 10 if you'd like, even if it's just yourself.
Post reply on HN