5 ms·

GitHub, Linode, AWS. A merchant account is in the cards, though we don't know where yet (and haven't finished the process of incorporation, so can't get one ye

by catone 18y ago

GitHub, Linode, AWS. A merchant account is in the cards, though we don't know where yet (and haven't finished the process of incorporation, so can't get one yet). At some point we might use Exceptional (I like the look of it, but I'm not a coder so I'm not making the decision of whether we need it or not) and if Get Satisfaction proves useful perhaps pay for a plan there. We'll see.

vorador 18y ago
By the way, why do you use github when you could host your sources yourself ?
- MicahWedemeyer 18y ago
  Maintaining your own repo is usually more work than most people realize. I prefer to outsource as much sysadmin as possible and stick to dev work, and source control is a cheap one to outsource. With unfuddle you can even get a (small) free private repo.
  - davidw 18y ago
    I've regularly criticized git for being good, but overhyped and not quite ready for prime time. However, it is dirt simple to set up a git repository for use by a few people on a box where they have accounts anyway. cd /var/local/ mkdir myapp ... appropriate permissions, add a few files ... git init And you're done. Granted, you can do fancier things, but we're talking about startups with just a few people here, right?
    - MicahWedemeyer 18y ago
      In my experience, the setup cost is minimal, but maintenance _always_ takes longer than I expect. Restarting servers, opening the correct ports, updating w/ security patches, integrating w/ ticket management, etc. Just my $0.02
      - davidw 18y ago
        * Restarting servers? If you're doing something really basic, it's just sshd. * Since you connect to the server anyway, that one's open. * Security patches is a regular apt-get update and not much more. * Ticket management... ok, that's an extra, but github still doesn't have a ticket tracking system, does it?
        MicahWedemeyer 18y ago
        I'm not arguing any particular specifics here, just saying that any sysadmin work - user management, server management, code hosting, smtp server (ugh, that shit sucks) - always takes longer than I expect. If you're a great sysadmin, go for it. If not, outsource as much as you can afford.
        davidw 18y ago
        I guess I have a different idea of what 'great sysadmin' means:-) Any competent hacker ought to be able to admin 1 or 2 unix boxes. It takes a great sysadmin to run hundreds of them. Also, my point depends on an assumption that may not be true for everyone: that you have your own server that you run.
        apinstein 18y ago
        I am pretty sure what Micah means by "great sysadmin" is "already skilled enough at managing services X,Y,Z so that you can do them with 0% chance that a 5-min thing turns into a 2-hour or 8-hour thing". I could manage all of that stuff directly, but I shouldn't because I don't do it all day long which means that either I'll a) do it wrong or b) have to do several hours of research to make sure I don't do it wrong or c) routine multi-hour interruptions when things break or d) combine a+b+c because that's what will happen in reality. It's because of this that we outsource the following things that we could do ourselves: * Email hosting (Tucows) * DNS servers (Tucows) * VoIP (Vonage) * 800# (Onebox) * External system monitoring (Pingdom) * General server sysadmin (a friend of mine) * StreamSend (Email Marketing - not that good, but dealing with RBL and email deliverability is worse) * Payflow Pro (credit card gateway - BAD customers service o/w OK) It costs some REAL money, but saves much more in opportunity costs, headache, etc. Plus our services improve as these companies improve offerings. We only directly manage things that can save us TONS of money or are strategically important. Here's the list of those things: * SugarCRM * RT (bug tracking. was outsourced but too $$ so we moved in house) * Internal system monitoring * Hosting (we run our own systems since we have tons of custom dependencies)
- jaxn 18y ago
  I had been hosting it myself (subversion), but when I added another developer I wanted it somewhere that I didn't have to manage and that kept security completely separate.

by catone 18y ago

vorador 18y ago

By the way, why do you use github when you could host your sources yourself ?

MicahWedemeyer 18y ago
Maintaining your own repo is usually more work than most people realize. I prefer to outsource as much sysadmin as possible and stick to dev work, and source control is a cheap one to outsource. With unfuddle you can even get a (small) free private repo.
- davidw 18y ago
  I've regularly criticized git for being good, but overhyped and not quite ready for prime time. However, it is dirt simple to set up a git repository for use by a few people on a box where they have accounts anyway. cd /var/local/ mkdir myapp ... appropriate permissions, add a few files ... git init And you're done. Granted, you can do fancier things, but we're talking about startups with just a few people here, right?
  - MicahWedemeyer 18y ago
    In my experience, the setup cost is minimal, but maintenance _always_ takes longer than I expect. Restarting servers, opening the correct ports, updating w/ security patches, integrating w/ ticket management, etc. Just my $0.02
    - davidw 18y ago
      * Restarting servers? If you're doing something really basic, it's just sshd. * Since you connect to the server anyway, that one's open. * Security patches is a regular apt-get update and not much more. * Ticket management... ok, that's an extra, but github still doesn't have a ticket tracking system, does it?
      - MicahWedemeyer 18y ago
        I'm not arguing any particular specifics here, just saying that any sysadmin work - user management, server management, code hosting, smtp server (ugh, that shit sucks) - always takes longer than I expect. If you're a great sysadmin, go for it. If not, outsource as much as you can afford.
        davidw 18y ago
        I guess I have a different idea of what 'great sysadmin' means:-) Any competent hacker ought to be able to admin 1 or 2 unix boxes. It takes a great sysadmin to run hundreds of them. Also, my point depends on an assumption that may not be true for everyone: that you have your own server that you run.
        apinstein 18y ago
        I am pretty sure what Micah means by "great sysadmin" is "already skilled enough at managing services X,Y,Z so that you can do them with 0% chance that a 5-min thing turns into a 2-hour or 8-hour thing". I could manage all of that stuff directly, but I shouldn't because I don't do it all day long which means that either I'll a) do it wrong or b) have to do several hours of research to make sure I don't do it wrong or c) routine multi-hour interruptions when things break or d) combine a+b+c because that's what will happen in reality. It's because of this that we outsource the following things that we could do ourselves: * Email hosting (Tucows) * DNS servers (Tucows) * VoIP (Vonage) * 800# (Onebox) * External system monitoring (Pingdom) * General server sysadmin (a friend of mine) * StreamSend (Email Marketing - not that good, but dealing with RBL and email deliverability is worse) * Payflow Pro (credit card gateway - BAD customers service o/w OK) It costs some REAL money, but saves much more in opportunity costs, headache, etc. Plus our services improve as these companies improve offerings. We only directly manage things that can save us TONS of money or are strategically important. Here's the list of those things: * SugarCRM * RT (bug tracking. was outsourced but too $$ so we moved in house) * Internal system monitoring * Hosting (we run our own systems since we have tons of custom dependencies)
jaxn 18y ago
I had been hosting it myself (subversion), but when I added another developer I wanted it somewhere that I didn't have to manage and that kept security completely separate.