6 ms·

I've used Bitbucket in the past. They charge per-user[1], and their pricing is significantly better free for 5 users and then once you eclipse 5 users it's $1/u

by emidln 10y ago

I've used Bitbucket in the past. They charge per-user[1], and their pricing is significantly better free for 5 users and then once you eclipse 5 users it's $1/user up to 100 users and then $200 for unlimited users. [1] - https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing

taytus 10y ago
This. I use bitbucket too and I can't understand why people are still paying github when bitbucket does exactly the same and is free.
- slantyyz 10y ago
  Github does seem to be the gold standard for open source projects. Having said that, I used to pay for Github's personal plan and found the cap on private repos (5 when I subscribed) to be a little too limiting. I ended up canceling the subscription and using a Bitbucket free account for private repos and Github for public repos. After using Bitbucket for a while, I think if I had to upgrade to a paid service, I'd just stick to Bitbucket.
- maerF0x0 10y ago
  People use github over bitbucket if they like the features that github provides, the diffs, issues etc. Not sure which features are unique to github alone, but each provider (including gitlab) has their own flavor. Many are just used to github flavor.
  - tokenizerrr 10y ago
    I use bitbucket at work, and it has many of the same features as github. The UI is a bit clunkier, and it does lack some of the flashy features such as automatically squashing commits when merging a pull request. However it does work fine, and it is well integrated with atlassian's other offerings which we also use. Mainly JIRA and hipchat, though bitbucket also has a per-repository issue tracker.
    - guelo 10y ago
      An aside, but I hate that squash feature more and more each day at my job.
      - tokenizerrr 10y ago
        Could you elaborate? Is it used for every pull request? That would be annoying, but sometimes developer leaves a trail of "work in progress" commits, so I'll wind up squashing those anyway.
- joeld42 10y ago
  I also use Bitbucket and am very pleased with it. It seems like their model is that bitbucket is well integrated and complements their paid products like JIRA and Teamcity, so they are not depending on free users to upgrade like github needs to, so it seems more likely to be sustainable.
- fps 10y ago
  Network effects make github more valuable, to an open source organization, than self hosting or hosting on another provider. Almost everyone has a github account and asking users to sign up for another account is a significant barrier to contribute.
  - BHSPitMonkey 10y ago
    Neither service charges for public repositories. We're talking about private ones here.
- qudat 10y ago
  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.
  - marssaxman 10y ago
    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 succeeds and the tests pass, but otherwise fails and sends you an error log. Never seen a build system set up that way, though, and the couple of times I've looked into the matter it seemed like I'd basically have to code it up myself, which was more effort than I was willing to put into it. With such an architecture, the idea of a "push request" would just be a manual OK step in addition to the automated test validation step.
    - ak4g 10y ago
      It's not necessary, it's a waste of development time and easily the biggest big-picture collective failure of our software engineering profession of the last decade. It easily beats out anything from the $foo.js world and the ongoing low-level security nightmare of web application development, because git, and more importantly, unnecessarily complex and error-prone git workflows have seen adoption across all kinds of software. There are probably a dozen projects in the world (the kernel admittedly being one of them) that are justifiably a good fit for the complex git-native workflows that have become standard practice across the industry today. But if you're doing it the old-fashioned way, you might as well use Subversion. Or mercurial, if you want all the local history, with the added bonus that unlike git it sensibly keeps the least-surprise semantics of 'commit', 'revert', and other commands that merely have a 30-year history of expectations that held true prior to git. But Mercurial was not authored by Linus, nor does it have the impenetrable, otherworldly data model that a first-time version-control-system author would unavoidably end up concocting in scratching their itch without consulting the existing, completely satisfactory, solutions that served us well for decades, which greatly reduces the number of interesting topics you can blog about for Mercurial. And so, git sees the adoption, github gets the $2bil valuation, and even bitbucket ends up switching to git as it's default. It won. Software engineering, collectively, has a lot of maturing to do.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- veidr 10y ago
  I will tell you one reason: Bitbucket is unbelievably slow where I live (Tokyo). Using it is mostly a matter of gnashing your teeth and waiting. GitHub is actually painfully slow too; just not as slow. That's the main reason I pay GitHub and use them for those projects where I need something more than just a git server for collaboration.
- veidr 10y ago
  I will tell you one reason: Bitbucket is unbelievably slow where I live (Tokyo). Using it is mostly a matter of gnashing your teeth and waiting. GitHub is actually painfully slow too; just not as slow. That's the main reason I pay GitHub and use them for those projects where I need something more than just a git server for collaboration.
reuven 10y ago
Absolutely. I use Bitbucket for a variety of small, personal projects. And when I teach Git courses, I use Bitbucket to illustrate (and practice) pull, push, and pull requests (among other things). Sometimes people wonder why I'm not using GitHub, which has made itself synonymous with Git for many people, but after a short explanation, they understand. However: GitHub has a huge network effect. Most developers with any sort of open-source connection have a GitHub account; many fewer have Bitbucket accounts. This isn't the end of the world, but it does mean that GitHub has a leg up on the competition as far as name recognition is concerned. Plus, there are lots of tools that talk to the GitHub API. So, while I personally endorse using BitBucket, I can understand why many would stick with GitHub. It'll be interesting to see what this price change does.
notimetorelax 10y ago
I'd be more careful with any offering from Atlassian. They recently increased significantly Crucible/FishEye prices. IIRC unlimited plan used to start at 200 users, now they added more tiers but kept the prices of the original tiers.

by emidln 10y ago

taytus 10y ago

This. I use bitbucket too and I can't understand why people are still paying github when bitbucket does exactly the same and is free.

slantyyz 10y ago
Github does seem to be the gold standard for open source projects. Having said that, I used to pay for Github's personal plan and found the cap on private repos (5 when I subscribed) to be a little too limiting. I ended up canceling the subscription and using a Bitbucket free account for private repos and Github for public repos. After using Bitbucket for a while, I think if I had to upgrade to a paid service, I'd just stick to Bitbucket.
maerF0x0 10y ago
People use github over bitbucket if they like the features that github provides, the diffs, issues etc. Not sure which features are unique to github alone, but each provider (including gitlab) has their own flavor. Many are just used to github flavor.
- tokenizerrr 10y ago
  I use bitbucket at work, and it has many of the same features as github. The UI is a bit clunkier, and it does lack some of the flashy features such as automatically squashing commits when merging a pull request. However it does work fine, and it is well integrated with atlassian's other offerings which we also use. Mainly JIRA and hipchat, though bitbucket also has a per-repository issue tracker.
  - guelo 10y ago
    An aside, but I hate that squash feature more and more each day at my job.
    - tokenizerrr 10y ago
      Could you elaborate? Is it used for every pull request? That would be annoying, but sometimes developer leaves a trail of "work in progress" commits, so I'll wind up squashing those anyway.
joeld42 10y ago
I also use Bitbucket and am very pleased with it. It seems like their model is that bitbucket is well integrated and complements their paid products like JIRA and Teamcity, so they are not depending on free users to upgrade like github needs to, so it seems more likely to be sustainable.
fps 10y ago
Network effects make github more valuable, to an open source organization, than self hosting or hosting on another provider. Almost everyone has a github account and asking users to sign up for another account is a significant barrier to contribute.
- BHSPitMonkey 10y ago
  Neither service charges for public repositories. We're talking about private ones here.
qudat 10y ago
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.
- marssaxman 10y ago
  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 succeeds and the tests pass, but otherwise fails and sends you an error log. Never seen a build system set up that way, though, and the couple of times I've looked into the matter it seemed like I'd basically have to code it up myself, which was more effort than I was willing to put into it. With such an architecture, the idea of a "push request" would just be a manual OK step in addition to the automated test validation step.
  - ak4g 10y ago
    It's not necessary, it's a waste of development time and easily the biggest big-picture collective failure of our software engineering profession of the last decade. It easily beats out anything from the $foo.js world and the ongoing low-level security nightmare of web application development, because git, and more importantly, unnecessarily complex and error-prone git workflows have seen adoption across all kinds of software. There are probably a dozen projects in the world (the kernel admittedly being one of them) that are justifiably a good fit for the complex git-native workflows that have become standard practice across the industry today. But if you're doing it the old-fashioned way, you might as well use Subversion. Or mercurial, if you want all the local history, with the added bonus that unlike git it sensibly keeps the least-surprise semantics of 'commit', 'revert', and other commands that merely have a 30-year history of expectations that held true prior to git. But Mercurial was not authored by Linus, nor does it have the impenetrable, otherworldly data model that a first-time version-control-system author would unavoidably end up concocting in scratching their itch without consulting the existing, completely satisfactory, solutions that served us well for decades, which greatly reduces the number of interesting topics you can blog about for Mercurial. And so, git sees the adoption, github gets the $2bil valuation, and even bitbucket ends up switching to git as it's default. It won. Software engineering, collectively, has a lot of maturing to do.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
veidr 10y ago
I will tell you one reason: Bitbucket is unbelievably slow where I live (Tokyo). Using it is mostly a matter of gnashing your teeth and waiting. GitHub is actually painfully slow too; just not as slow. That's the main reason I pay GitHub and use them for those projects where I need something more than just a git server for collaboration.
veidr 10y ago
I will tell you one reason: Bitbucket is unbelievably slow where I live (Tokyo). Using it is mostly a matter of gnashing your teeth and waiting. GitHub is actually painfully slow too; just not as slow. That's the main reason I pay GitHub and use them for those projects where I need something more than just a git server for collaboration.

reuven 10y ago

Absolutely. I use Bitbucket for a variety of small, personal projects. And when I teach Git courses, I use Bitbucket to illustrate (and practice) pull, push, and pull requests (among other things). Sometimes people wonder why I'm not using GitHub, which has made itself synonymous with Git for many people, but after a short explanation, they understand. However: GitHub has a huge network effect. Most developers with any sort of open-source connection have a GitHub account; many fewer have Bitbucket accounts. This isn't the end of the world, but it does mean that GitHub has a leg up on the competition as far as name recognition is concerned. Plus, there are lots of tools that talk to the GitHub API. So, while I personally endorse using BitBucket, I can understand why many would stick with GitHub. It'll be interesting to see what this price change does.

notimetorelax 10y ago

I'd be more careful with any offering from Atlassian. They recently increased significantly Crucible/FishEye prices. IIRC unlimited plan used to start at 200 users, now they added more tiers but kept the prices of the original tiers.