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

Introducing unlimited private repositories

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 662 posts

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#211

Post by taspeotis »

bad_user wrote: post #129
taspeotis wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep my eye on Microsoft's Visual Studio Team Services. It has a bit of a clunky name and aimed more at enterprises but I think at some point they will position it as a competitor to GitHub. It's free for the first five developers, and no charge for "stakeholder" user accounts. https://www.visualstudio.com/pricing/visual-studio-team-serv... So 29 users would be $182/m (check my maths) and you'd pay nothing for the…

If you no longer want/need the social aspects of GitHub, you can just move to GitLab. Much more affordable and you can self host it yourself. We have an on premise GitLab installation. Besides the rare upgrade, it's pretty hands off. And it's costing us $0 in licensing fees for over 60 users ;-)

I looked at GitLab, it seems to come off second best in terms of features [1].

[1] https://www.visualstudio.com/get-started/overview-of-get-sta...

Hard to argue with free though, if that's what you're looking for.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#212

Post by mrweasel »

pknerd wrote: post #156
teen wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitbucket is terrible though, so what does it matter?

Really? I guess entire Atlassian suite is awesome. Bitbucket for SCM, Jira, Wiki and all that make it a perfect combo.

But oh so expensive. If you're already paying for Jira and maybe Confluence, the new pricing model for GitHub shouldn't be much of a problem.

Jira, HipChat and Confluence are really nice tools, but pricing seems to just snowball.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#213

Post by Etheryte »

bad_user wrote: post #129
taspeotis wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep my eye on Microsoft's Visual Studio Team Services. It has a bit of a clunky name and aimed more at enterprises but I think at some point they will position it as a competitor to GitHub. It's free for the first five developers, and no charge for "stakeholder" user accounts. https://www.visualstudio.com/pricing/visual-studio-team-serv... So 29 users would be $182/m (check my maths) and you'd pay nothing for the…

If you no longer want/need the social aspects of GitHub, you can just move to GitLab. Much more affordable and you can self host it yourself. We have an on premise GitLab installation. Besides the rare upgrade, it's pretty hands off. And it's costing us $0 in licensing fees for over 60 users ;-)

Any company that has a sysadmin should simply host their own GitLab.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#214

Post by Etheryte »

bsnape wrote: post #165

This has almost quadrupled our monthly cost ($850 vs $2914). We have ~300 users which will have to be reduced massively to save costs - perhaps with non-engineers sharing accounts or having no access at all. I'm not sure if charging per user is really in the spirit of open collaboration that GitHub champions. I slo wonder if charging per user rather than per repo will also discourage the creation of open-source repos…

If you already invest into this monthly, why don't you just have GitLab on premise?

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#215

Post by dommer »

Xylakant wrote: post #207
dommer wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"loosing credibility" is subjective in this case. Some orgs/people will be better off, some won't. I recall GitHub doing some extensive research on what their customer based wanted. This is most likely the outcome of that research. If I were to migration our org. over we would be worse off. Even with that I don't think this move is disingenuous. Poorly thought through perhaps?

> Even with that I don't think this move is disingenuous. I never said that I consider the move disingenuous. Almost no change will unilaterally benefit everybody. I dislike the communication that reads as if the change is unilaterally beneficial - where it clearly is not.

I didn't say you did. Well, I don't think I did. Either way, we agree it wasn't disingenuous. I'd also agree this change won't be beneficial to all.

And GitHub is also allowing everyone to make a choice. "...you'll have at least 12 months notice before any mandated change to your plan."

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#216

Post by rplnt »

k__ wrote: post #126
grawlinson wrote: post #4

That's cool but seeing as Bitbucket has unlimited private repos for everyone, I'll be sticking with Bitbucket for private trash and Github for public trash.

Same here. That's the cool thing about Git. Everyone uses the same "protocol" so you can simply move your stuff around.

But does bitbucket/etc have emoticons in commit messages?

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#217

Post by Etheryte »

sudhirj wrote: post #175

What's with all the negativity? This is really good pricing - all individuals now pay much less (a flat rate of $7), all small shops pay almost the same thing ($30 to $90 for 3 to 10 people). Both groups no longer need to think twice about creating repos, which has always been a huge pain that I've seen. I've even thought twice about microservices because the repo cost would be a pain. This will affect enterprises -…

As pointed out by numerous other comments, this pricing model makes no sense for a lot of use-cases: external collabs, inactive collabs, wide org structure etc. Many companies would expect to now pay a magnitude or multiple more than before, this is hardly "lunch money".

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#218

Post by rplnt »

moby wrote: post #112
bufordsharkley wrote: post #80

Have been using Github for a community radio station, have been encouraging all staffers to use github accounts to file issues against our private repos, etc. The friendly policies for many collaborators have made this attractive, even though most users have rarely interacted with the repos, if at all. Now each user for the private repo has a significant cost (pretty significant for a non-profit community radio stati…

Certainly appreciate your question around pricing for non-profits here - have you applied for non-profit status through GitHub? We do have discounts to support eligible non-profit organizations, and you can request the discount at https://github.com/nonprofit . Feel free to reach out to Support ( https://github.com/c ) if you have any further questions around this!

I don't think there is a question in that post. Also there's "non-profit" (business) and "non-profit" (hobby).

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#219

Post by a_imho »

stubish wrote: post #166
xchaotic wrote: post #110

So what makes them think that they can get away with it? There's already decent competitors - GitLab, BitBucket, Azure or you can just host your own git repos - gitlab will even give you a nice Web UI for it. Why do they think that people with stick with github, if we're talking $thousands/year then surely migrating to another git repo provider is worth it?

Vendor lockin. Because there is a lot more involved that accessing files in a .git directory. All those CI systems and workflow plugins and whatnots such as travis-ci work with github, not git. And all the inflight issues and pull requests etc. Migrating or giving up the features you use has a cost (not just in dollars), and if github has done their sums right most customers will realize they are better off staying w…

Travis CI is pretty minor player (google search 10M > hits), and I would say 3rd party service integration is exactly vendor lockin.

Imho this makes sense, because users who cared about pricing already moved on to cheaper alternatives and/or not used github to begin with. I agree, mass migration or phasing out github is unlikely because of the associated costs, however with all the other great services around new users might think twice where to sign up.

Post reply on HN