3 ms·
> I'm actually surprised GitHub/Microsoft hasn't eaten their lunch yet. It's not for lack of trying. GitHub are aggressively pursuing the enterprise market fro
by lucideer 2y ago
> I'm actually surprised GitHub/Microsoft hasn't eaten their lunch yet.
It's not for lack of trying. GitHub are aggressively pursuing the enterprise market from a sales perspective but there's been three problems with their approach:
1. They're pushing SaaS over on-prem: enterprise services in general are trending this way, but it only really works when you're in a dominant position - like e.g. Atlassian - when you're competing it's going to leave you with less leverage with potential clients.
2. They're leaning very heavily on AI - this is a double-edged sword as it's currently selling well to clients as a pitch but anyone doing functional evaluations is looking at benchmarks & it's not really mature enough to deliver there.
3. They're iterating really slowly on their roadmap. This seems to be GitHub's (not Microsoft's) typical approach, which I'm honestly a big fan of, but when you're entering a market with existing mature players it's going to slow down sales.
I do think GitHub will ultimately take over - it'll just happen slower than expected.
- nicce 2y ago> They're pushing SaaS over on-prem You can perfectly run, identical, self-hosted version of GitHub on premise? Maybe sales is focusing SaaS, but otherwise, there isn't difference?
- jjayj 2y agoI run an on-prem GitHub server. New features come 6-18+ months behind Cloud for the most part, our reps are always trying to get us to move to Cloud, and new features are often broken for weeks/months even after being released for on-prem.
- 999900000999 2y agoI might be out of my element, but if your trying to run on prem anyway, why not just go full open source and self host?
- lucideer 2y agoSubjective take: GH & GL are equally bad when it comes to bundled enterprise features, so the differentiator is going to be individual dev features & UX/DX. GH is much better at the latter - CICD might've been a differentiator in the past for GL but even before Actions a lot of companies were pretty happy going 3P here.
- pixl97 2y agoI would assume they are running it for a company, in which if said user gets hit by a bus you want to be able to bring someone else in quickly that can run the operation.
- jjayj 2y agoWe have looked at GitLab in the past, but I wasn't involved in that process. Generally though: - Enterprise support is very important to us - Migrating thousands of repos and training hundreds of devs to use a new VCS is a huge and expensive task - We have custom integrations with GitHub that would need to be rewritten as well
- lucideer 2y agoCurious about your experience as I'm in a similar position (running ghe, want to stay on it, mgmt being sold on ghec) - I have other reasons for wanting to stay on ghe but my experience is recent features hit ghec first. Maybe that's a recent change in their release cycles?
- jjayj 2y agoGHES is a massive monolith running dozens (hundreds?) of services in Nomad, so it's not surprising to me that GH has a hard time supporting it and wants folks to move away from it. I'm tired of slow, risky, late-night upgrades to the appliance. I'm tired of sending support bundles and being told to run a customized string of MySQL commands to resolve peculiar issues. I'm tired of checking the roadmap and telling folks "yes, they announced that feature, but it won't be available to us for at least 12 months." I'm tired of a feature eventually being in the GHES release notes, only for GitHub to have made a mistake and it not be available for another two versions. We're moving to GHEC. I'm concerned about the semi-frequent outages there, but we're not running HA GHES so it has become a liability for us.
- lucideer 2y agoMainly talking about sales, but also a lot of their newer enterprise-oriented new feature developments are either saas-first, or not (yet?) roadmappedb for on-prem.