3 ms·

This is our current list; I'm ignoring ones we've stopped using or haven't really started using properly yet. Github - obviously AWS - obviously Ylastic - ea

by seldo 14y ago

This is our current list; I'm ignoring ones we've stopped using or haven't really started using properly yet. Github - obviously AWS - obviously Ylastic - easier AWS management Sendgrid - mail delivery Stripe - payment processing Pingdom - external uptime tracking PagerDuty - ops alerting and scheduling Xero - accounting JIRA - task management (the hosted version at Atlassian) Desk - support tickets Crashplan - personal machine backups Google Docs/Mail - everything else Others have been mentioning Fabric, Puppet, Graphite, Nagios -- we use these but they're not hosted services, so not sure they fit.

guelo 14y ago
I don't think Github is an "obviously" unless you have an open source project. It's really not that hard to set up a git ssh server
- simonw 14y ago
  The GitHub web interface is SO much better than running your own repository. Pull requests are awesome for code reviews, the code browsing interface is best of breed, and if you use their issue tracker and/or wiki everything links together fantastically well.
  - Silhouette 14y ago
    The GitHub web interface is SO much better than running your own repository. And all you have to do is trust probably your second most valuable asset to an external service outside your organisation... What could possibly go wrong?
    - gatherknwldg 14y ago
      Your cash is a valuable asset to your startup, too, but people don't store that in-house. Who do you trust more, github or Wall Street?
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
    - casca 14y ago
      This is true, but it's a question of what the risk is. Externally hosting usually has 2 possible catastrophic outcomes: data loss and data exposure. As you probably have the code checked out by a number of employees, data loss is annoying but not catastrophic as you're probably not losing anything more than a few hours time. Data exposure would have a greater impact, but the likelihood is probably around the same as if you run your own repo through credential compromise. The Github security team is probably around the same level of effectiveness as you are. So it's probably not that big a deal. Having said that, we self-host our git repos :).
  - bpatrianakos 14y ago
    I just wrote about this very thing yesterday. I'm wondering why people don't host their own git repos. Yeah, GitHub's interface is amazing but is it always necessary? I can only understand using GitHub for git for open source stuff and maybe large team stuff. Otherwise there's really no need for that fancy UI with private repositories. Just branch, pull, and inspect the code. It's not like it takes any longer than waiting for GitHub's pages to load. But hey, maybe I'm the weirdo and everyone else is sane.

by seldo 14y ago

guelo 14y ago

I don't think Github is an "obviously" unless you have an open source project. It's really not that hard to set up a git ssh server

simonw 14y ago
The GitHub web interface is SO much better than running your own repository. Pull requests are awesome for code reviews, the code browsing interface is best of breed, and if you use their issue tracker and/or wiki everything links together fantastically well.
- Silhouette 14y ago
  The GitHub web interface is SO much better than running your own repository. And all you have to do is trust probably your second most valuable asset to an external service outside your organisation... What could possibly go wrong?
  - gatherknwldg 14y ago
    Your cash is a valuable asset to your startup, too, but people don't store that in-house. Who do you trust more, github or Wall Street?
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - casca 14y ago
    This is true, but it's a question of what the risk is. Externally hosting usually has 2 possible catastrophic outcomes: data loss and data exposure. As you probably have the code checked out by a number of employees, data loss is annoying but not catastrophic as you're probably not losing anything more than a few hours time. Data exposure would have a greater impact, but the likelihood is probably around the same as if you run your own repo through credential compromise. The Github security team is probably around the same level of effectiveness as you are. So it's probably not that big a deal. Having said that, we self-host our git repos :).
- bpatrianakos 14y ago
  I just wrote about this very thing yesterday. I'm wondering why people don't host their own git repos. Yeah, GitHub's interface is amazing but is it always necessary? I can only understand using GitHub for git for open source stuff and maybe large team stuff. Otherwise there's really no need for that fancy UI with private repositories. Just branch, pull, and inspect the code. It's not like it takes any longer than waiting for GitHub's pages to load. But hey, maybe I'm the weirdo and everyone else is sane.