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

601–610 of 662 posts

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#601

Post by X-Istence »

puddintane wrote: post #447
sytse wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're very welcome to switch to GitLab.com, we are free forever https://about.gitlab.com/gitlab-com/#why-gitlab-com-will-be-... and it can import directly from GitHub.

GitLab CE (Community Edition is Free) and is truly great we use it in our own internal software development process. However for a bigger enterprise they require more functionality here is a comparison of the differences between the Community and Enterprise Editions. https://about.gitlab.com/features/#compare Several pricing options for EE but essentially the base cost is $39 /year per user. https://about.gitlab.com/…

You are replying to the CEO of Gitlab... :P

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#602

Post by giovannibajo1 »

Alupis wrote: post #543
cstejerean wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per user pricing makes a lot more sense than per repo pricing. This way larger organizations pay more money than smaller ones regardless of how they structure their code. This is a good deal for small organizations that like to have many small repositories (for internal libraries, utilities, micro services, modules, etc). Sure, it screws up a few models that rely on external collaborators to get access to private rep…

My company, for one, was actually in the middle of shifting to BitBucket off of Github, because the costs were becoming unjustifiable. We have a growing number of repos that are more-or-less "finished" projects, and few if any changes are made per year. Accounting was starting to groan... and BitBucket's model fit our small team almost perfectly, although Github's UI, flow, etc, was, in our opinion, still better. New…

The new pricing model is about 9x more expensive than Bitbucket, for a given number of users. If your cost-concerned, I can't understand why you should reverse your decision.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#603

Post by giovannibajo1 »

krschultz wrote: post #483
unfunco wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If your bill increased by hundreds of dollars then you have many employees. You really can't afford $9 per user a month? This came up in the Jetbrains pricing arguments. What the hell are you paying software engineers if $9 or $20 a month matters. My employer has paid me more than $9 in the time I've been trolling this thread to respond to people.

This argument doesn't make sense. What matters is how much the total Github cost (or cost increase, if we're evaluating the impact of this change) affects your bottom line, or the costs of your department, or even your company profit. For instance, my company would get a $6k hit from this price change, and we spend ~30k on SaaS software in total or ~60k in IT costs (including wages). It's a very significant change, that will absolutely trigger a strong evaluation of alternatives.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#604

Post by Alupis »

giovannibajo1 wrote: post #602
Alupis wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My company, for one, was actually in the middle of shifting to BitBucket off of Github, because the costs were becoming unjustifiable. We have a growing number of repos that are more-or-less "finished" projects, and few if any changes are made per year. Accounting was starting to groan... and BitBucket's model fit our small team almost perfectly, although Github's UI, flow, etc, was, in our opinion, still better. New…

The new pricing model is about 9x more expensive than Bitbucket, for a given number of users. If your cost-concerned, I can't understand why you should reverse your decision.

We have a fairly small team of developers, and a fairly large number of private repositories. So, for us, it's a pretty significant savings.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#605

Post by sytse »

X-Istence wrote: post #601
puddintane wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GitLab CE (Community Edition is Free) and is truly great we use it in our own internal software development process. However for a bigger enterprise they require more functionality here is a comparison of the differences between the Community and Enterprise Editions. https://about.gitlab.com/features/#compare Several pricing options for EE but essentially the base cost is $39 /year per user. https://about.gitlab.com/…

You are replying to the CEO of Gitlab... :P

Which is very OK :) BTW we published a blog on SaaS git pricing a minute ago https://about.gitlab.com/2016/05/11/git-repository-pricing/

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#606

Post by krschultz »

giovannibajo1 wrote: post #603
krschultz wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your bill increased by hundreds of dollars then you have many employees. You really can't afford $9 per user a month? This came up in the Jetbrains pricing arguments. What the hell are you paying software engineers if $9 or $20 a month matters. My employer has paid me more than $9 in the time I've been trolling this thread to respond to people.

This argument doesn't make sense. What matters is how much the total Github cost (or cost increase, if we're evaluating the impact of this change) affects your bottom line, or the costs of your department, or even your company profit. For instance, my company would get a $6k hit from this price change, and we spend ~30k on SaaS software in total or ~60k in IT costs (including wages). It's a very significant change, t…

Assuming you are using annual numbers there, you are saying you have 55 users on Github. The relevant number isn't your IT budget, it's the salaries of the people using GitHub. If it's $75k per person thats over $4.125 million a year.

Does 0.15% of your budget matter? Does GitHub not make your team 0.15% more productive? Would the switching cost to a new tool be less than 0.15% of your total cost?

If you are doing that math and coming up with the answer that switching makes sense, by all means do it, but I would argue that your problems are bigger than your GitHub bill. I personally can't fathom working for a company that strapped for cash, I'd be looking for a new job myself.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#607

Post by hrez »

StevePerkins wrote: post #444

TL;DR - GitHub is switching to Bitbucket's pricing model, but with a monthly charge of $9/user rather than $1/user. Seems bizarre to me. The "enterprise" market they're chasing are largely Atlassian customers already, and Bitbucket has a competitive edge there with its JIRA integration. GitHub's distinguishing characteristic was a different pricing model, that for some organizations makes more sense than Atlassian's…

Github is betting on stickiness aka lock-in. That might prove to be bad bet. Short term everybody who saves (small teams) will switch to new price model. No sane org will opt to multitude of price increase voluntarily. So github looses revenue short term. If github forces the switch on everybody many big orgs will jump the ship one way or another. So github looses again.

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#608

Post by vacri »

pfooti wrote: post #489
vacri wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GitHub seems cheap to me At $9/user/mo, github is 900% more expensive than the $1/user/mo direct competitor BitBucket. BitBucket uses brackets rather than pure scaling, but their most expensive option - 101 users require the $200 unlimited accounts plan - is still only $2/user.

Bitbucket seems to be at least in large part a subsidized loss-leader to the rest of the Atlassian infrastructure. And, legit question: how do you feel about Jira?

I don't mind Jira, with the exclusion of the abominably confusing user management[1]. I've never found a ticketing system that didn't suck in some major way; it's a difficult thing to get right.

[1] Somewhere I've got a screenshot I made that has arrows pointing to the four locations in Confluence where you can find different ways of adjusting user perms (jira uses the same user system). This doesn't include the location where you actually manage your Atlassian licenses...

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#609

Post by profmonocle »

pc86 wrote: post #326
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…

From the perspective of a customer: repositories should be cheap, users shouldn't be. This is a positive change and one that will make me strongly consider moving from BitBucket to GitHub. I've worked at places with two developers and 150 repositories. I've worked at places with 12 developers and 5 repositories. Who do you think gets more marginal utility out of another repository? Every place I've worked that hasn't…

I work at a small company (7 engineers) and per-repo pricing is exactly why we chose not to use GitHub. Most of our projects are short-term, meaning we have hundreds of repos going back over ten years, the majority of which are inactive. GitHub's pricing didn't make sense for us at all. (We ended up using self-hosted GitLab which we're pretty happy with.)

Re: Introducing unlimited private repositories

#610

Post by cpeterso »

marssaxman wrote: post #573
qudat wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These services are not the same, not since I last checked. Someone forks your repo, makes a change and then submits a PR. I can't pull their changes down until they give me read access to their forked repo. I found a lot of these little annoyances to be a big reason to switch to github. Not to mention their UI pales in comparison to github, which I think says a lot.

I've never understood why all the fork/change/commit/push/pull-request fol-de-rol is necessary. Why can't we just pull, hack, and submit a "push request"? But I guess I've never understood why everyone else seems to be OK with a build/repo system where it is even possible to break the build at all; it's always seemed to me like it should be set up so you push to a testing stage, which merges to master if the build su…

> I've never understood why all the fork/change/commit/push/pull-request fol-de-rol is necessary. Why can't we just pull, hack, and submit a "push request"?

I've always wondered why GitHub doesn't add automatically add an "upstream" remote when forking a repo. Once you fork a repo in the GitHub UI, there is no way to pull changes from upstream repo other than manually creating your own "upstream" remote.

Post reply on HN