3 ms·

Yep, you are right on point. Developers use the commodity version at home and want to use the same (awesome) tools in the workplace. Enterprise companies

Yep, you are right on point. Developers use the commodity version at home and want to use the same (awesome) tools in the workplace. Enterprise companies who wish to differentiate their hiring/talent pipeline recognise this and consider it a commercial advantage. Additionally these same enterprises have strict IP policies which prevent the IP from being hosted in the cloud. Win Win. The enterprise product VMware/Xen/HyperV image is *the exact same* ruby/chef codebase as used in production on GitHub.com. They are making an absolute killing via price discrimination - have you seen the enterprise pricing? https://enterprise.github.com/features#pricing - 10 developers -> $2,500 USD a year. - 50 developers -> $12,500 USD a year (+/- enterprise negotiations) - 150 developers -> $37,500 USD a year (+/- enterprise negotiations) - 500 developers -> Telephone number of a sales/account rep appears. IMHO this (cheap) cash is going to be used to grow their sales and enterprise support teams to accelerate this loop. https://jobs.github.com/companies/GitHub

peteretep 11y ago
Any CTO signing off on $37,500USD a year for 150 developers, when you can get unlimited developers on Bitbucket for $2,400, probably needs to be fired.
- vdaniuk 11y ago
  Are you sure? The price of the Github's service is ~$20.8 per developer per month. This is about 10-30 minutes of developers time worth per month. Adapting to Bitbucket's workflow and learning its UI would take much more time.
  - peteretep 11y ago
    If you've hired a developer for whom using Bitbucket instead of Github takes 10-30 minutes more effort a month, you need to rereview your hiring process.
    - vdaniuk 11y ago
      I am not sure anyone actually hiring would take this advice seriously.
- ghuntley 11y ago
  I see you have not had much experience with large companies; $37k is nothing there are line managers who can sign off on amounts larger than this :-)
  - peteretep 11y ago
    An ability to sign off more than that does not mean it's a good use of company money.
andruby 11y ago
Nope, the enterprise version is _not_ the exact same ruby/chef codebase. See for example this blogpost [1] where they announce LDAP sync. New features are often released on the public Github before they are included into a new github enterprise release. That being said, the enterprise version is very close to the public version. They are probably branches of the same repositories. [1] https://github.com/blog/category/enterprise https://github.com/blog/category/enterprise
- ghuntley 11y ago
  There are four distinct products in production (public, firewall, ghe v1 and ghe v2). I've explored the internals between all of the minor and major enterprise releases over a beer or two on a lazy afternoon. The initial product was a separate spin-off and there was definitely product convergence at the ghe v2 stage which appears to be based off public. My best uninformed, informed guess as of v2 they are now on the same branch, potentially using feature flags to enable/disable behavior to reduce maintenance/support overhead. Extremely interesting stuff can be found at the pre-install and immediate post-install stage (use standard forensics tools + granular vmware snapshots to produce diffs) that's all I will say on the topic however.

peteretep 11y ago

Any CTO signing off on $37,500USD a year for 150 developers, when you can get unlimited developers on Bitbucket for $2,400, probably needs to be fired.

vdaniuk 11y ago
Are you sure? The price of the Github's service is ~$20.8 per developer per month. This is about 10-30 minutes of developers time worth per month. Adapting to Bitbucket's workflow and learning its UI would take much more time.
- peteretep 11y ago
  If you've hired a developer for whom using Bitbucket instead of Github takes 10-30 minutes more effort a month, you need to rereview your hiring process.
  - vdaniuk 11y ago
    I am not sure anyone actually hiring would take this advice seriously.
ghuntley 11y ago
I see you have not had much experience with large companies; $37k is nothing there are line managers who can sign off on amounts larger than this :-)
- peteretep 11y ago
  An ability to sign off more than that does not mean it's a good use of company money.

andruby 11y ago

Nope, the enterprise version is _not_ the exact same ruby/chef codebase. See for example this blogpost [1] where they announce LDAP sync. New features are often released on the public Github before they are included into a new github enterprise release. That being said, the enterprise version is very close to the public version. They are probably branches of the same repositories. [1] https://github.com/blog/category/enterprise https://github.com/blog/category/enterprise

ghuntley 11y ago
There are four distinct products in production (public, firewall, ghe v1 and ghe v2). I've explored the internals between all of the minor and major enterprise releases over a beer or two on a lazy afternoon. The initial product was a separate spin-off and there was definitely product convergence at the ghe v2 stage which appears to be based off public. My best uninformed, informed guess as of v2 they are now on the same branch, potentially using feature flags to enable/disable behavior to reduce maintenance/support overhead. Extremely interesting stuff can be found at the pre-install and immediate post-install stage (use standard forensics tools + granular vmware snapshots to produce diffs) that's all I will say on the topic however.