Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket • Hacker News Board

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#201

Post by nine_k » Tue, Oct 09, 2012, 10:21 PM UTC

__alexs wrote: post #127

wickedchicken wrote: post #124

A lot of people here are commenting on GitHub being 'overpriced' or 'greedy.' TPW did an interview a while ago that has insight into why their pricing structure is the way it is. It's a pretty interesting read: http://mixergy.com/tom-preston-werner-github-interview/ (search for 'which metrics') to skip to the pricing part). Money quote: "That’s like buying a car based on how much it weighs. It’s irrelevant." I may be…

> Money quote: "That’s like buying a car based on how much it weighs. It’s irrelevant." Car manufacturers are constantly going on about how the latest model weighs X% less than last years. Lower weight usually means better handling and a more fun driving experience...

Owners of SUVs and off-road cars might disagree.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#202

Post by eloisant » Tue, Oct 09, 2012, 10:22 PM UTC

taligent wrote: post #155

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.

Are you mad ? $7 a month is nothing for something that you are going to use countless times whilst developing your product. And no offense but Bitbucket is still a clunky mess that lacks the most critical feature: integration with almost every open source project.

That's cool if you have ONE product, and that's it.

If you work for customers (say as a freelance developer) and need to create a repo each time you win a new project, the $7 plan is useless.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#203

Post by capex » Tue, Oct 09, 2012, 10:24 PM UTC

Atlassian's business model is to draw in small companies with their $10 plan, and increase prices fast as the company grows. They're just following the same pricing model with Bitbucket. Free private repos for up to 5 users, paid accounts after that.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#204

Post by LordIllidan » Tue, Oct 09, 2012, 10:27 PM UTC

wilmoore wrote: post #181

LordIllidan wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not just $7. We are a small consulting company, with a lot of git repositories. Our total costs would be more in the range of $50 a month. That's what I am getting at. $7 a month is not all that expensive, you're right - but I am only getting 5 private repositories for that $7 a month. It just doesn't make sense to use github for private work when you have a lot of repositories.

If you have each client take on the $ burden, then you don't have this problem. You've may have convinced yourself that by absorbing the cost, you are doing your client a great service. In fact, you are putting more burden on yourself for little value. It takes 15 minutes to walk the client through how to pay for and manage a github organization. I do it with all of my clients. It is an opportunity to teach/coach and…

You make a good point in that this could be absorbed as an implicit cost of a client project - but tell me again, why would we do this, when we can simply use BitBucket and create as many repositories as we like, without any problems whatsoever?

Our only limit is then the amount of people we hire, which is far more reasonable in my eyes.

If we were working on a small number of projects, then it would absolutely not be a problem to work with Github - it's when you have a lot of tiny projects that it becomes prohibitively expensive to work with.

Fair enough, that's how Github wants to price their service - I guess its catered more to actual startups (who have a few large core projects) rather than businesses like ours.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#205

Post by meemo » Tue, Oct 09, 2012, 10:34 PM UTC

yosoyzenitram wrote: post #184

notatoad wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Even better: if you sign up with a .edu email address (hell, even my university email account works and it's a .es), they upgrade your account to unlimited everything , automatically. GitHub also does a Educational plan, but it requires manual requests and IIRC they give you a Micro account. So Bitbucket is the default choice for all my shared class projects.

What if you signed up with your personal account? Is there a way to upgrade by changing your email address to an *.edu email address?

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#206

Post by human_error » Tue, Oct 09, 2012, 10:39 PM UTC

Osiris wrote: post #80

bitcartel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like Bitbucket because they support both Mercurial and Git. They also acquired SourceTree (probably the best version control app on the Mac), employed the main developer and made the app free.

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

IMHO, Git-Tower is way better than SourceTree.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#207

Post by jonpacker » Tue, Oct 09, 2012, 10:40 PM UTC

jlogsdon wrote: post #199

wyck wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also integrates with several atlassian products, namely Jira which in my opinion beats github's issue tracker into the dust.

A notepad blows Github's issue tracker away. It's by far the least impressive part of the product.

Interesting. I use Github's issue tracker every day and love it to bits.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#208

Post by Adirael » Tue, Oct 09, 2012, 11:00 PM UTC

doublerebel wrote: post #57

Surprised to not see GitLab mentioned here. GitLab is FOSS and already has almost all of these features, allowing me to host multiple private repos on a single cheap VPS. That is exactly why I chose it over Bitbucket or Github. If Bitbucket wants to stay competitive, I think this is the least they can do -- unfortunately I don't see any innovation that puts them ahead of the other players in the market.

This is awesome. I've been wanted to host my own code (right now I'm con CodebaseHQ [1], great service) for security purposes but I didn't want to go with a plain git+gitosis.

I have it up and running now on my nginx (it was already serving all my projects), it took about 30m to do everything on Ubuntu following their how to and looking up their issues queue for a couple quirks I found.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#209

Post by Ryan_Shmotkin » Tue, Oct 09, 2012, 11:07 PM UTC

notatoad wrote: post #27

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

Can someone explain whats the catch ?

Looks like I can host my $22 github account for free on bitbucket.

Re: Introducing the Redesigned Bitbucket

#210

Post by stickfigure » Tue, Oct 09, 2012, 11:08 PM UTC

dfabulich wrote: post #196

stickfigure wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A user unfamiliar with command line git arguments would have a difficult time with SourceTree Let's be honest about git: A user unfamiliar with the CLI commands will have a difficult time, period. I hesitate to predict that it's impossible to create a good UX, but git is a very complicated system with an abstraction that leaks all the way down to database records. Breathe on it wrong and the repository will wedge int…

The github GUI for Mac/Windows solves this problem completely, by hiding the vast majority of git's power-user features. (No stage, no no tracking branches, no manual rebasing.)

Oh, how I wish this were so!

Even with fairly boring usage, the Github GUI periodically wedges my repository into a state which requires CLI interaction (and a trip to stackoverflow). It's even worse for newbies - I get desperate pleas for help from clients all the time. I have come to the conclusion that there is no way around teaching the command line first, then giving them the Github client after they achieve competence.