4 ms·

How much are you willing to pay? :) Seriously, though, it's probably priced beyond what most small teams could afford, but it's on a per-company basis which is

by pjhyett 17y ago

How much are you willing to pay? :) Seriously, though, it's probably priced beyond what most small teams could afford, but it's on a per-company basis which is why we're not posting prices. GitHub:FI was really built with large customers in mind, places with tens to hundreds of developers bridled with restrictions that prevent them from hosting their code on GitHub.com. There's no reason smaller companies can't use it, but for the time being we want to dedicate more attention and support to fewer well-paying customers. We may offer a pricing model in the future that's more affordable for smaller teams, but I can't state emphatically enough that if your team doesn't have the type of restrictions mentioned earlier, you should absolutely be using GitHub.com.

ankhmoop 17y ago
I mentioned this in another comment, but I just wanted to note that even as a very small company, we tend to avoid solutions that won't readily integrate with our existing LDAP users and group-based access control, backup system, single-sign-on, etc. Not using web services has less to do with being bridled corporate restrictions and more to do with preferring to use our nice, fully automated infrastructure. Hosting another small java servlet isn't going to make us break a sweat -- it'll be less work than trying to maintain user accounts and access controls across another web service. For this reason, we solely use products that drop right into our standing infrastructure. I don't think we're too unusual in this, although we may be amongst the HN sample set.
icefox 17y ago
For companies where the code is the primary product they sell, hosting it on a remote server seems like a hard thing to ask for from upper managment no matter how secure it is. I can see the case for a lot of small software companies that really would want to use github, but someone on the team refuses to let the code be placed outside their network.

by pjhyett 17y ago

ankhmoop 17y ago

I mentioned this in another comment, but I just wanted to note that even as a very small company, we tend to avoid solutions that won't readily integrate with our existing LDAP users and group-based access control, backup system, single-sign-on, etc. Not using web services has less to do with being bridled corporate restrictions and more to do with preferring to use our nice, fully automated infrastructure. Hosting another small java servlet isn't going to make us break a sweat -- it'll be less work than trying to maintain user accounts and access controls across another web service. For this reason, we solely use products that drop right into our standing infrastructure. I don't think we're too unusual in this, although we may be amongst the HN sample set.

icefox 17y ago

For companies where the code is the primary product they sell, hosting it on a remote server seems like a hard thing to ask for from upper managment no matter how secure it is. I can see the case for a lot of small software companies that really would want to use github, but someone on the team refuses to let the code be placed outside their network.