6 ms·

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

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
  Stash's internals are completely extensible. Having access to the source allows you to extend and modify it to fit your needs. On top of that, you can build features (i.e., plugins) on top of Stash that you can share or sell to other Stash users on Atlassian's Marketplace.
- biafra 14y ago
  I regularly need the source code for Maven or its plugins to check where exactly a bug is that I am experiencing.
leo79 14y ago
I use RhodeCode for a small team (https://bitbucket.org/marcinkuzminski/rhodecode https://bitbucket.org/marcinkuzminski/rhodecode). It does not have all the features of github or bitbucket but is selfhosting and opensource.
csomar 14y ago
I think it's targeted to startups who want to do costs savings. As they'll probably retain them when they grow, the pricing goes 180 times more expensive for the next plan. It's still a lot cheaper than Github, though.
- mkchandler 14y ago
  We recently moved to GitHub Enterprise and it really is not as expensive as it looks. It is $250/year per developer... not really that much considering what you get. Plus it is a virtual server provided for us, so we just have to upload software upgrade packages to get the latest updates. We didn't have to spend the money on someone to set up all of the MySql, Redis, Solr, etc. services to get it running. So honestly I consider GitHub Enterprise to be quite a cost savings. Just a counterpoint... EDIT: We are not a startup, but still something to consider.
csomar 14y ago
I think it's targeted to startups who want to do costs savings. As they'll probably retain them when they grow, the pricing goes 180 times more expensive for the next plan. It's still a lot cheaper than Github, though.

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
Stash's internals are completely extensible. Having access to the source allows you to extend and modify it to fit your needs. On top of that, you can build features (i.e., plugins) on top of Stash that you can share or sell to other Stash users on Atlassian's Marketplace.
biafra 14y ago
I regularly need the source code for Maven or its plugins to check where exactly a bug is that I am experiencing.

leo79 14y ago

I use RhodeCode for a small team (https://bitbucket.org/marcinkuzminski/rhodecode https://bitbucket.org/marcinkuzminski/rhodecode). It does not have all the features of github or bitbucket but is selfhosting and opensource.

csomar 14y ago

I think it's targeted to startups who want to do costs savings. As they'll probably retain them when they grow, the pricing goes 180 times more expensive for the next plan. It's still a lot cheaper than Github, though.

mkchandler 14y ago
We recently moved to GitHub Enterprise and it really is not as expensive as it looks. It is $250/year per developer... not really that much considering what you get. Plus it is a virtual server provided for us, so we just have to upload software upgrade packages to get the latest updates. We didn't have to spend the money on someone to set up all of the MySql, Redis, Solr, etc. services to get it running. So honestly I consider GitHub Enterprise to be quite a cost savings. Just a counterpoint... EDIT: We are not a startup, but still something to consider.

csomar 14y ago