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

271–280 of 662 posts

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#271

Post by odonnellryan »

unfunco wrote: post #259
thijsc wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For us as a small team it's a very positive change. Our monthly bill just went from $100 to $25.

And for us it's negative, our monthly bill has just increased by hundreds of dollars. In theory, our respective organisations could be in competition, and GitHub has just increased our monthly bill to subsidise your organisation, instead of shouldering the financial burden themselves.

> GitHub has just increased our monthly bill to subsidise your organisation, instead of shouldering the financial burden themselves.

This is a really weird argument. They are a company supplying a service, why should they ever have to shoulder the bill?

I'd argue that if things stayed the same, this small company would subsidize you: if you have 100 accounts using 1 repo it's more likely you're using more resources than 1 account with even 1000 repos :)

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#272

Post by odonnellryan »

wlll wrote: post #230
hunvreus wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As stated at the end of my comment, a fair price is what they decide to charge. I simply don't like people to try and spin a price increase into a freebie.

You seem to be ignoring the comments to the contrary made on your original comment when stating this. Sure it's going to cost some orgs more, and it makes sense that it does. I'd wager that data at rest (lots of repos) costs a hell of lot less to run than active requests (lots of users). Personally my bill will be going down from $25 to $7, and I'm fine with that. My companies bill will be going down from $650/month…

> active requests (lots of users).

Also, more users = more problems.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#273

Post by atonse »

badminton1 wrote: post #75

I am strongly considering moving to gitlab.

I have some private repos on gitlab and it is sloooooooow to push and pull. It routinely takes 10 seconds to push or pull.

That itself makes deploys seem like a chore. And it's enough to make me come back to github for a mere $7.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#274

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

frostymarvelous wrote: post #235
hunvreus wrote: post #130

1. Take a gazillion dollars in funding on an over-hyped valuation, 2. Go through significant organizational changes that end up with the departure of a co-founder (and more suits in the building). 3. Notice that a significant segment of your growth (VC-funded startups) are running out of money. 4. Switch to a user-based pricing to generate more revenue for investors, but spin it as a freebie "Hey! Look at the cool un…

Per repo pricing was why we didn't go with github. Atlassian was our only option till we shopped around till we found Visual Studio Team Services. For a team of 4. Simply great. No need to pay for Jira or anything at this point. Now, I won't go back to github even if it was completely free. The value Atlassian gives makes it a much better and attractive offering if you don't like Microsoft.

All the production code here is on BitBucket.

Forcing users to pay for privacy has always stuck in my throat as a business model.

I think this change is due to GitHub feeling some heat from Atlassian and GitLab.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#275

Post by odonnellryan »

0xmohit wrote: post #193
arnvald wrote: post #40

A small comparison: Team | Cost Before | Cost Now 1 repo, 5 users | $25 | $25 1 repo, 10 users | $25 | $70 11 repos, 5 users | $50 | $25 11 repos, 10 users | $50 | $70 5 repos, 50 users | $25 | $430 50 repos, 5 users | $100 | $25 50 repos, 50 users | $100 | $430 I'm not sure how common are organizations with few users and large number of repose - I guess software houses that keep old projects (for maintenance and fut…

It's possible that people have started realizing the advantages of monolithic version control [0] which prompted Github. Team | Cost Before | Cost Now 1 repo, 100 users | $25 | $880 [0] http://danluu.com/monorepo/

I think this price increase is OK. You'd be hard pressed to find any enterprise product that would only charge you $25/mo for 100 users.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#276

Post by odonnellryan »

Xylakant wrote: post #263
odonnellryan wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's an open source project? I guess it can be a NFP that has closed-source repos. But why?

Doesn't have to be OS. It could be a commercial product that grants access to the source.

It's possible, but that's a weird requirement (weird you'd want all your clients on the same repo, anyway) and you'd be able to circumvent this and come out pretty swell on the other side if that money is really worth it to you.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#277

Post by pilif »

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 ;-)

> Besides the rare upgrade, it's pretty hands off

rare upgrade? They release every 4 weeks and often the update is absolutely mandatory due to various RCE vulnerabilities. Github would need to become much more expensive before it would be cheaper to use in-house gitlab.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#278

Post by fps »

jnmandal wrote: post #270
fps wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work for a non-profit open source organization that collaborates on github ( https://github.com/edx/ ) We have lots of people who aren't employees, but have signed a contributor agreement with our organization and contribute changes to our software. Our bill will go up from $200/month to over $2000/month with this new pricing. We can afford it (it's still a small fraction of our AWS bill) but it will force us to lo…

If you are non profit and open source do you really need private repos?

We have about 100 private repos at the moment, including internal tools, branding related components, infrastructure code and pre-release stuff that we're not developing in the open. We may just move those to AWS code commit, gitlab or gogs and switch back to a free org.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#279

Post by [deleted] »

wbillingsley wrote: post #255
moby wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Out of interest, why do you require charities to have no religious affiliation at all? Perhaps there's some US tax or legal aspect to it? At at first glance from overseas, it seems oddly churlish and monoculturalist (dare I say "fearful of the prayerful") to disallow community groups and charities where actually yes their beliefs did prompt them to step out in service, and they are not ashamed of that. I can't imagin…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN