3 ms·

I know a lot of companies that are too cheap to pay for hosting (or even host in-house), and therefore use bitbucket with its unlimited private repos. It's thei

by Aissen 10y ago

I know a lot of companies that are too cheap to pay for hosting (or even host in-house), and therefore use bitbucket with its unlimited private repos. It's their gateway drug, and once they get used to that, good luck having them move over to github.

Scea91 10y ago
Why use the derogaroty 'too cheap'? Maybe they are just not 'too stupid' to pay more than they have to.
- SyneRyder 10y ago
  "Too cheap" sounds a fair comment to me if the price is free. Anything free is almost certainly a loss-leader, as providing the service itself is almost certainly not free (whether it's a tiny-but-non-zero bandwidth cost, or the costs of providing support). So long as the loss-leader is paying its way via the upsell, it's fine. And if those businesses have contingency plans for moving if BitBucket shuts down the free plan, then it's fine for them too. But the fear is that "too cheap" companies also tend to be cheap when it comes to managing contingencies.
- Aissen 10y ago
  I guess my critic is that you should always know why you use a service, and not just use it because it's the cheapest solution out there. In particular, is bitbucket(/github/gitlab…) adapted to your needs ? Will it support your growth ? Is it ok to have your source code on someone else's (or another country's) server ? Lots of question to be answered, and a conscious choice to make, without looking at only pricing. I was talking about companies doing the latter, not all bitbucket free users (of which I am one myself).
stephenr 10y ago
> too cheap to pay for hosting That's your view of companies that don't throw money at an over priced service with a history of ignoring customer requests? "too cheap". I hear that's why Linus first wrote the Linux kernel back in the day - he was too cheap to buy a license for a commercial unix. /s

3 ms·

I know a lot of companies that are too cheap to pay for hosting (or even host in-house), and therefore use bitbucket with its unlimited private repos. It's thei

by Aissen 10y ago

Scea91 10y ago
Why use the derogaroty 'too cheap'? Maybe they are just not 'too stupid' to pay more than they have to.
- SyneRyder 10y ago
  "Too cheap" sounds a fair comment to me if the price is free. Anything free is almost certainly a loss-leader, as providing the service itself is almost certainly not free (whether it's a tiny-but-non-zero bandwidth cost, or the costs of providing support). So long as the loss-leader is paying its way via the upsell, it's fine. And if those businesses have contingency plans for moving if BitBucket shuts down the free plan, then it's fine for them too. But the fear is that "too cheap" companies also tend to be cheap when it comes to managing contingencies.
- Aissen 10y ago
  I guess my critic is that you should always know why you use a service, and not just use it because it's the cheapest solution out there. In particular, is bitbucket(/github/gitlab…) adapted to your needs ? Will it support your growth ? Is it ok to have your source code on someone else's (or another country's) server ? Lots of question to be answered, and a conscious choice to make, without looking at only pricing. I was talking about companies doing the latter, not all bitbucket free users (of which I am one myself).
stephenr 10y ago
> too cheap to pay for hosting That's your view of companies that don't throw money at an over priced service with a history of ignoring customer requests? "too cheap". I hear that's why Linus first wrote the Linux kernel back in the day - he was too cheap to buy a license for a commercial unix. /s