5 ms·
The problem is convincing management there is a significant advantage to paying for private GitHub repos when you could use BitBucket for free. Even if we need
by LocalPCGuy 13y ago
The problem is convincing management there is a significant advantage to paying for private GitHub repos when you could use BitBucket for free. Even if we needed to pay for BitBucket (i.e. need more than 5 users on a repo), the cost for a company like ours that might need 20 users total on a repo is pretty minimal, and the pay per private repo on GitHub quickly adds up and passes the BitBucket costs. From a pure cost analysis for private projects, I don't see how BitBucket doesn't come out on top. Maybe if you only have 1 repo and 100s of users, but in the more average company where you have multiple repos and a smallish number of developers, BitBucket is almost always going to win the price war.
- bronson 13y agoI presume you're all developing on NetBooks?
- zhemao 13y agoThat's not a fair comparison. If all you want is private version control hosting, Github and Bitbucket offer pretty much the same amount of functionality, whereas a NetBook differs greatly from a full-sized laptop or desktop.
- dasil003 13y agoHow many private repos do you need? I'm also in a very cost-conscious company, but compared to other infrastructure costs, GitHub is very very inexpensive.
- waps 13y agoAccording to linus' talk, git's whole point is branching. The point is that cost must not be an argument not to branch. The public-or-pay on github effectively forces one to pay for starting a project. Starting a project should be free, easy and obvious. Github satisfies none of those.
- waps 13y agoAccording to linus' talk, git's whole point is branching. The point is that cost must not be an argument not to branch. The public-or-pay on github effectively forces one to pay for starting a project. Starting a project should be free, easy and obvious. Github satisfies none of those. I don't agree that this is the main difference between github and bitbucket though. I would argue bitbucket is support for their other services (basecamp and whatnot), and team-based development is what you pay for. Github's features seem directly oriented to make github's administrator's jobs easier. Anything that is a bit of a problem, or doesn't fit in the original design doesn't get made at all or gets cut (ie. file attachments, project downloads). And "darling" features, like the network graph, that are unusable due to speed and bad UI get pushed into the spotlight, despite that.
- dasil003 13y agoUh, there is no cost to branch on GitHub. I'll leave my critique of your comment (and it's abortive duplicate cousin) at that.