11 ms·

For a while I was a bit worried that GitHub had just ran away with the prize and no one else was bothering. It is pretty obvious that Google isn't interested in

• pimentel 14y ago
  > (not counting places 1-10 for enterprise source control, which basically print money, and of which GitHub is chasing too). What kind of source control do big corps use? Don't they just use SVN, with enormous budget for maintenance contracts?
  • robgough 14y ago
    Perforce and TFS (Team Foundation Server) are other choices that I've seen used in large corps. (TFS obviously for Microsoft houses only.)
• wahnfrieden 14y ago
  Google is working on a new Google Code overhaul which is supposed to be quite different.
  • bvdbijl 14y ago
    Source?
    • parfe 14y ago
      Yep. That's pretty much the focus of google code.
      • imderek 14y ago
        I think he was asking for the source of @wahnfrieden's claim.
        • dwrowe 14y ago
          /that's the joke.mcbain.jpg
        • bvdbijl 14y ago
          Yeah, I was. I would still like to know
        • skeletonjelly 14y ago
          Hah. This reads like a geeky Airplane!/Flying High quote or something.
      • pjscott 14y ago
        Not yet it isn't. In the current UI, to get to the source code, you have to 1. Find the little "Source" link and click it. 2. Find the "Browse" link, which is in a little toolbar right under the other little toolbar, next to the (less relevant) "Changes" and "Clones" links, which look visually near-identical. 3. In most (but not all) projects, hunt down the word "trunk" in tiny 13px text, and click it to see the main development branch. Compare to GitHub or BitBucket, which just show you the damn code. (Yes, I know you were joking, but I've been wanting to rant about this UI failure for a while now. And don't even get me started on Launchpad.)
        • kanzure 14y ago
          > but I've been wanting to rant about this UI failure for a while now. And don't even get me started on Launchpad. After five years or whatever of being tricked into clicking Launchpad links, I just noticed the other day that they have a "source" link on the top left corner. I had no idea they actually displayed source code. I always thought it was some crappy bug reporting product. Who knew?
          • 14y ago
• notatoad 14y ago
  Bitbucket had a pretty easy time of winning my business: free private repositories for small teams is a great way to draw people in.
  • hess 14y ago
    The free private repos are a lifesaver. They also just released a refer a friend program like dropbox. You can get up to 8 users for free. - http://blog.bitbucket.org/2012/09/18/refer-a-friend-to-bitbucket-for-free-users/ http://blog.bitbucket.org/2012/09/18/refer-a-friend-to-bitbu...
  • bitcartel 14y ago
    I like Bitbucket because they support both Mercurial and Git. They also acquired SourceTree (probably the best version control app on the Mac), employed the main developer and made the app free.
    • Osiris 14y ago
      I've tried at least a dozen Git GUIs for both PC and Mac and SourceTree is by far my favorite.
      • mitjak 14y ago
        Can you elaborate on why? I've found it to be far from intuitive and basically a direct mapping of CLI commands straight into UI elements. A user unfamiliar with command line git arguments would have a difficult time with SourceTree, I would imagine (most of my coworkers have).
        • masklinn 14y ago
          One more datapoint: can't say I like SourceTree. Still looking for a Mercurial GUI worth using. My biggest issue is that I'm a big user of annotate/blame (I have a very bad memory so finding out where/how/why a given piece of code was created or evolved is something I do at least weekly if not daily) and all the hg guis have absolute shit annotate. They also tend to look rather bad. GitX is pretty good (I think I still prefer the original one over the Laullon gitx, but the Laullon gitx has an acceptable annotate view and look nice), and surprisingly the best annotate view I've seen so far is in bazaar's qt-based UI. The tools are not necessarily great overall (and the OSX interactions are downright weird), but the annotate is excellent.
• carlosaguayo 14y ago
  "but I think its going to be hard to win anymore" I guess history has showed us that as soon as something feels unbeatable, a contender comes out of nowhere to dethrone the king.
• bitcartel 14y ago
  Bitbucket's self-hosted enterprise product Stash is priced aggressively. It's free for open source projects, non-profits and classrooms. For small teams (up to 10 users), it costs just $10/year, all in, and you get the source code. http://www.atlassian.com/software/stash/pricing http://www.atlassian.com/software/stash/pricing Contrast with Github where the minimum purchase is 1 seat pack (up to 20 users), costing $5000/year, and you don't get any access to the the source code. https://enterprise.github.com/pricing https://enterprise.github.com/pricing
  • climis 14y ago
    Oh, I just realized the $10 was for a year but not a month.
  • vineet 14y ago
    I am really curious: Why does getting access to the source code matter? (I am just asking since it seems to be a selling point, and I have never really modified the code of a tool that I have used. For example, how many people modify Eclipse, or Maven, or BugZilla's source code?)
    • jstepka 14y ago
      Stash allows you to customize your deployment... database, server platform and develop plugins. Having the source is critical to develop tightly integrated plugins for customization.
    • LordIllidan 14y ago
      You can fix bugs, customize the interface to your liking, stuff like this? It's basically another selling point, no? (Haven't tried it myself)
    • pbreit 14y ago
      Just thinking out loud...maybe the customer would like to make a modification or two? Is it better to _not_ have the source code?
    • rmanalan 14y ago
• bitcartel 14y ago
  Another option: Assembla provides Git, Subversion and Perforce repo hosting.
• ErrantX 14y ago
  GitHub nails the public code space, with social features. Bitbucket nails the private project space; so for small dev companies they are perfect. I've been a BB user from early on and they have successfully focused on this niche for some time now. I'd say both are equally perfect options for their respective usage :-)
• benologist 14y ago
  Those free private repos are awesome and liberating - instead of bundling whole solutions into repos I'm just making them for anything now because the difference between a dozen repos and a few dozen is $0 a year instead of $600.
• tzs 14y ago
  They've got a good shot, because a lot of people need private repositories and do NOT need the social features of Github. They just need a basic git server to hold the master repository. For doing their work, the built-in tools of git are sufficient. For such people, Github is ridiculously expensive, since their price is based on the number of repositories you have. For instance, at work we've got enough repositories (all small) that we'd need the $200/month Github plan. In terms of storage costs, that works out to about $10/megabyte/month. That's 5 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more than the market rate for cloud storage. When you are selling something 5 orders of magnitude above the market rate, there is room for competitors.
  • csomar 14y ago
    5 orders of magnitude will result in $1million/month.
    • jonknee 14y ago
      Perhaps you misread the OP, but he mentioned megabyte not gigabyte. S3 costs $.125 per GB for the first TB, so the math would be: (.125/1024)(10101010*10) which comes out to $12.21, or pretty darn close.
  • mnutt 14y ago
    Isn't that like complaining about Apple selling the iPhone at over $100/ounce? I don't contest that there are probably people who only need a remote git repo and nothing else. But those companies that would service them either compete on features or get pushed down to wholesale cloud storage prices, a place you don't want to be unless you're Amazon.
  • josegonzalez 14y ago
    Thats maybe a day of single developer's work - less if you actually pay your startup dev's market value. Paying for a service that can double or triple a developer's productivity - people say the UI on BB is still not as great, so that counts for something - must at some point justify that developer's time. If you have enough repos that you'd need to spend $200 a month on a platform that offers: - Wikis - Basic Issue Tracking - Source Control (and damn good source control at that) - Integration with many popular startup tools Then maybe your startup should be out of business. I could shit $200 dollars and pay for my companies hosting. Trying to skimp on this is like telling your 10+ dev team to use google talk for offline coordination. Yes, you save money on chat, but you lose all that time I waste copy-pasting and coordinating chats between multiple devs.
• charlieok 14y ago
  Since BitBucket is run by Atlassian, whose primary business (as far as I know) is enterprise software, I would guess (again without knowing) that they're in a pretty good position. They're well known for their wiki, Confluence, and their ticket/issue/task tracker, JIRA. Source control is a natural extension of those tools, which I'd guess have had some effort put into making sure they work well together. Looks like Stash is what they sell to enterprises, versus BitBucket which is hosted. Anyone know if these are completely separate products, or if they share a common codebase? I've found SourceTree to be a great GUI tool for working on Git/Mercurial repos. All of which is to say, good on them. I'm glad to see two very respectable players in this space.
  • patrickambron 14y ago
    Just started using Confluence. If you're willing to use their hosted version, it's one of the best project management softwares I've used. I would gladly use more products by them
  • rmanalan 14y ago
    > Looks like Stash is what they sell to enterprises, versus BitBucket which is hosted. Anyone know if these are completely separate products, or if they share a common codebase? Two separate codebases. Bitbucket is running on a Python stack (Django) and Stash is built on a Java stack (traditional Atlassian stack). Stash can be extended through plugins (https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/app/stash/popular?category=Source+Code+%26+Version+Control https://marketplace.atlassian.com/plugins/app/stash/popular?...)
• rogerbinns 14y ago
  I really wish Google Code would support paid/private projects. Every startup I have been at would have been more productive with Google Code. Their bug tracker is better than both GitHub and BitBucket. We wouldn't have needed yet another set of accounts due to already being on Google. And critically they let you have multiple repositories for the same project. That is a huge annoyance with GitHub and BitBucket where you have exactly one repository (sometimes a second "wiki" one) and then one bug tracker, downloads etc. Every project I have worked on has multiple repositories (eg a server part, testing code, android client, admin tools, ios client). It has been of zero benefit having each one with its own bug tracker, downloads, wiki etc as often issues cross boundaries (eg bad display in client could be because of a bug in server returning bad data). People have been begging Google to pay them! https://code.google.com/p/support/issues/detail?id=1829 https://code.google.com/p/support/issues/detail?id=1829
• eloisant 14y ago
  One thing: pricing. * Free private repo for small teams * Unlimited private repos for pay customers (price is per user) Github's pricing with a limit in the repo number makes it pretty much impossible to use if you're in the service business and you start a new project quite often. It may be fine for the startup with one main project, I guess.