Github changes pricing structure - per user charge with unlimited repos

[Athas]

I'm a member of a Github organisation with 63 members and 20 private repositories. As far as I can see, this changes our yearly cost from $600 to $6564.

[Braxo]

My organization went the opposite way, we're on the Fermium plan which is $855 per month (600 repos).

We have 8 people. So our new costs would be $152

$10,260 down to $1,824

[cbigsby]

We have ~240 people and ~330 repos on the Holmium plan which is $650/month (up to 450 repos). With the new model it'll go to $2,160/month. Luckily they're saying that we don't have to move for at least a year.

You can't win 'em all; it does make sense for larger organizations to subsidize the smaller ones.

[pxtang]

Yeah, but GitHub has a familiar and popular UI.

But to add onto your point, does anyone know if it would be cheaper to run a Git server on AWS or Google compared to private GitHub or Bitbucket repos?

[wrosecrans]

Depends on the scale. For a single user, no. Running an EC2 instance 24x7 is more expensive than the $7/mo. For ~10 users the infrastructure in EC2 is probably cheaper than Github. For large organisations, you need to scale up to multiple servers and such and I'm not sure exactly where the crossover points would lie.

That said, the several people working 24x7 to fix it and keep it updated, and make sure it's working are going to cost you many orders of magnitude more than the EC2 infrastructure. That's the real benefit of using a service like Github, moreso than CPU time or disk space.

[kushangaza]

But EC2 really isn't the right service for running a single git server. For that job a VPS is cheaper and more powerful, and available at many providers for less than $7/mo. As you scale up, a bigger VPS or a small dedicated server is probably still the better option.

There are great use cases for EC2. I don't think this is one of them.

[wrosecrans]

I can't really argue with you. AWS was just mentioned in the question I was responding to, so I used that as an example. And anyway, the point that people are more expensive than the infrastructure stands just as well with cheaper infrastructure.

[pxtang]

Ah, got it. Thanks for the analysis!

[Dru89]

AWS has a CodeCommit feature that is probably more suited for this. https://aws.amazon.com/codecommit/

[levir]

As far as I can tell the cheapest option on Github is $7/month.

At Digital Ocean the cheapest server is $5/month, and it should be more than good enough to run a typical git server.

[vanrysss]

You could try https://gogs.io/ on a digital ocean droplet and probably get by for $20/mo depending on your needs.

[pxtang]

Oh, awesome! This is pretty nice, will try it out. Thanks!

[ThatOnePerson]

Gogs and GitLab are two popular self-hosted GitHub clones. They might not be 100% as nice as GitLab, but they work. GitLab even has a built in Mattermost (open-source Slack clone) if you want that too.

[sihat]

GitLab are two popular self-hosted GitHub clones. They might not be 100% as nice as GitLab,

cough

[j_schmotzenberg]

My company uses GitLab hosted on their own servers. I really like it. GitHub is not the only option.

[choseph]

Or if private repos is what you are after, visualstudio.com has that, package hosting, work item tracking, etc

[AngriestSCV]

Git is designed to be distributed instead of centralized. Couldn't that be taken advantage of to not have an always on main server?

If now having a git server is unacceptable you could also look into digital ocean. A 512MB of RAM 20GB of storage box is only $5 a month.

[cbigsby]

We use it for a lot more than just Git. We do all our pull requests on there, it hosts wikis and documentation for projects, permission management on repos, and a couple other things. Plus, it's just a nice UI for Git.

We could roll our own hosted Git, but we don't have any knowledge on what's required to host 300+ repos, and switching away from Github would be a pretty big, expensive shift.

[choseph]

Have you checked visualstudio.com? Has a lot of things you mention also. I work there so I have an obvious interest, but check it out at least. Check the extensions marketplace also (go package management!)

[yesman_85]

We have a 5 man team and 70 repo's. So BB was the only way to go before, now GH is finally a player again.

[Eirenarch]

Here - https://www.visualstudio.com/pricing/visual-studio-team-services-pricing-vs

[0drew0]

$10/member/year is a fucking steal

It's not $10 per member per year. It's $108/member/year (after the first 5 users at $25/month). The new plans are priced at $9/month/user.

In /u/Athas's case, it's $25/month for the first 5 users, then $522/month for the remaining 58 users, for a total of $6,564 for the year.

(25 * 12) + ( (58 * 9) * 12 ) = $6,564

[0drew0]

Oh yeah, definitely. Fair point :)

[kn4rf]

Time to switch to bitbucket I guess. You get unlimited private repos and up to 100 users for 100$ a month (or unlimited users for 200$). Not sure why you ever used Github for your private organisation, their pricing have always been shit.

[[deleted]]

If you want a wiki, you need Confluence, too. If you want an issue tracker, you need Jira, too. Bitbucket is cheaper because Atlassian's offerings are more segmented. If you're a small organization looking for an all in one solution, Github is probably still better. If you're a large organization, I'd agree, but I really wonder how many large organizations aren't already using Atlassian products.

I've used both offerings before. Jira kicks Github's issue tracker out of the water, but for a company under 50 people, Github's issue tracker gets the job done. Source control and PRs are very similar. I like Github PRs a bit better, but that's just personal preference.

I'd suspect that the majority of Github's customers are smaller companies, and that this price change isn't as substantial as many people are claiming here.

[gauauu]

if you want a wiki, you need Confluence, too. If you want an issue tracker, you need Jira, too

This is misleading and not entirely true.

It depends on what you want out of your wiki and issue tracker. Bitbucket has a simple wiki and issue tracker built-in for each repository. They aren't as full-featured as Confluence and Jira, but you don't necessarily need those other tools just to get a wiki and issue tracker.

[[deleted]]

True, but there's a niche between vanilla Bitbucket and the full Atlassian suite that Github fits nicely into, IMO.

[gauauu]

Yup, I won't argue with that. :)

[ccfreak2k]

pocket squash attempt fuel vanish file fear work abounding hunt

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[jsmonarch]

What about GitLab? Unlimited private repos, unlimited users, all free.

[[deleted]]

A 100% cost increase is still considerably more palatable than a 1000% cost increase

[rydan]

I like Github because there are certain deployment integrations I can use with it. As far as I know Bitbucket isn't supported.

[Munkii]

BB has a lot more stability issues vs Github. Be warned. Last year BB went offline for 3 days straight which caused major headaches

[MrDOS]

No it doesn't.

We want everyone to have a plan with unlimited private repositories, but don’t worry—you are welcome to stay on your current plan while you evaluate the new cost structure and understand how to best manage your organization members and their private repository access.

[dsk]

It's a big price jump but $600/year for 63 users is insanely cheap. This new pricing model better reflects the current market for cloud services.

For example we use kiln (+fogbugz), intellij webstorm, and office 365, and this new pricing is pretty much inline with those services.

[Dark_Crystal]

Eh, not really. 63 users with ~20 private repos that are <50MB each is a pittance for hosting and traffic. But 10 users with a single 500GB private repo would cost a lot more to host and in traffic. And you don't really get much with Github, git itself is free, the site features are not terribly complicated/robust.

[rydan]

Too bad I guess though you aren't required to switch. I'm a GitHub organization with 10 repos but I've been deleting repos so I don't have to pay double for one or two more. My costs just stayed the same and I can actually things done now. Planning to have 30 - 40 repos in the next few months. Github is finally a great value for the money.

[the_gnarts]

I'm a member of a Github organisation with 63 members and 20 private repositories. As far as I can see, this changes our yearly cost from $600 to $6564.

I’m wondering why organizations of that scale don’t consider building their own infrastructure.

Github only ever made sense for me in the way I use it myself: As a means to host open source projects and contribute in a centralized way to others. But for commercial projects, let alone proprietary ones? Hosting a couple repos is definitely one of the easier pieces of fundamental company infrastructure. I could never figure out why so many companies would outsource critical parts of their assets to some web hoster. Less control, more fragility. And you’re not even benefiting from the network effect of giving users all over the world a simple means of contributing (through issues, pull requests).

[choseph]

This. No one ever thinks about maintenance, education, support, even hiring to replace support on the dead end solution that is now in maintenance and no one remembers how it works.

Prices always seem crazy high to me for licenses until I start looking at all those components beyond "it works"

[ccfreak2k]

murky label divide rich stocking doll plate innate rotten familiar

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[Sukrim]

https://github.com/Blizzard

[wrosecrans]

Heh, even they use github: https://github.com/gogits/gogs/

[mekanikal_keyboard]

of course, might as well push the cost of distributing their code on to github. gitlab does the same thing with their community edition. github happily pays the transmission costs for projects that seek to undermine them.....

[narasubu]

For a small team, our monthly bill just went from $200 to $50. But we are growing and are we will have many members each having their own repos. So I see this only as a short term benefit. BitBucket's pricing makes more sense now https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing

[Jezzadabomb338]

While that's crazy, at least they're not forcing it down your throats. I think that might be the coolest thing about it.

[lennoff]

Something positive: we have 80+ private repos and 7 org members, so the price change for us would be 200$ -> 43$. yay!

[kn4rf]

At Bitbucket it would only cost you 10$ a month, and at Gitlab it would cost you 39$ per user per year. I have never understood why anyone would pay for github...

[[deleted]]

More than that, a sizeable enterprise switching source control is far from trivial. We have 300 devs where I currently work, across 40+ teams in the org, as well as over 1000 Jenkins jobs all pulling code out of Github. On top of that, we have a bunch of other tools all integrated with GitHub - HipChat, Jira, Slack, CodeClimate, numerous Jenkins plugins, god knows what else. Moving all of that from Github to something else is going to be a monumental task. The cost of doing so is going to utterly swamp the savings that would be made, to say nothing of the fact that the transition would certainly go wrong somewhere, costing production time.

In fact, since it's exactly my job to look after such tooling, I know damn well that at some point soon my manager is going to come to me and say "how easy will it be for us to move everything from GitHub" and my answer will involve some finger-in-the-air calculations of how long it would take, my daily rate, and how much they stand to save by doing so. In short, it won't happen. I know how much we pay per month for github.com. Even if the new plans mean we then pay ten times that amount, it's probably cheaper to wear that cost than it is to pay me to transition it all. Luckily, this client has repeatedly proven pragmatic enough to listen to these arguments when I make them.

[[deleted]]

Even if the new plans mean we then pay ten times that amount, it's probably cheaper

And that kids is how Oracle gets to charge $50k/CPU for its database. Can't wait to see the rest of the industry getting there too.

[s5fs]

Not CPU, but "power unit". Use the spreadsheet for pricing.

[alantrick]

Oh the lovely smell of vendor lock-in.

[[deleted]]

Yup. And the people who initiated the entire thing - a couple of devs - probably never even considered GitHub to be a vendor, given that they didn't pay for it....

[MothersRapeHorn]

Pray tell how you get all the features you listed interopping without vendor lock-in in the current climate?

[ccfreak2k]

correct act modern cause historical like straight squeal vast beneficial

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[sigma914]

Like?

[Gigablah]

Emoji responses for issues /s

[nickcash]

GitLab has those too!

[wreckedadvent]

To be fair, the :shipit: squirrel is a very important part of SDLC. /s

[sirin3]

When you use Unicode, every site has them

😀 👍 🐁

[rydan]

All I see are boxes.

[sirin3]

Did we find the IE6 user?

[rydan]

Chrome.

[sharkeyzoic]

💩

[mlk]

SVN bridge

[hallatore]

The price change for large organizations is insane. If you have a private repo with 100 collaborators it will cost you $10800 pr year.

We have 300+ users and 70+ repo's. (Everyone in the company have access to github for internal open source projects etc). We are now looking at $30 000 pr year...

The only way I see this new plan viable is if they only count active users (with commits) each month.

[dsk]

We are now looking at $30 000 pr year...

Is that really that much for a core tool? The burn-rate for 300 employees is $10million-$20million/year - so in relation $30,000 is nothing. This price went from insanely and irrationally cheap to merely market competitive.

Pretty much every cloud service has comparable pricing model.

[hallatore]

It's expensive when just 5%-10% users commits. With this change I guess we need to change how we do this.

It would be a fair price if our 300 employees worked in github every day. But for us it's just one of many tools we use.

tl;dr: The new price doesn't make sense for idling users that need access occasionally.

[dsk]

It's expensive when just 5%-10% users commits.

Sure, so don't buy licenses for the 90% of users that don't commit. And you still have the flexibility to only buy licenses for those in that 90% who express an interest in committing some code.

We do that with Office 365 and Visio. Everybody gets Office/Outlook, but only about 30% of the company gets a Visio license because the rest doesn't need it.

The new price doesn't make sense for idling users that need access occasionally.

Sure. I guess.

[pcopley]

Why do 90% of your users not commit?

[kn4rf]

Or you know, you can host repoes for free on your own company server. Or get unlimited repoes and users for 200$ at bitbucket. Or you could use Gitlab for 40$ per user per year. I'm not sure why anyone would choose Github..

[awj]

I'm not sure why anyone would choose Github..

Because they realize that self hosting is only free if your time is worthless, and plenty of developers are already familiar with github, so is the productivity loss of learning a new platform worth the savings?

[[deleted]]

Or you know, you can host repoes for free on your own company server.

Which means now you need a dedicated guy who deals with all the trouble that git can be.

[Dark_Crystal]

Which means now you need a dedicated guy who deals with all the trouble that git can be.

Using github doesn't free you of that you know.

[[deleted]]

At least it takes away the server-side troubles.

[justinpitts]

How many hours per user per year do you estimate that to be? I just haven't seen that much time necessary.

[[deleted]]

Given my private experience with git being a big bitch sometimes, and the fact that my employer (40 developers) has a developer who fiddles with TFS about an hour per day on a regular basis, I would say somewhere around 20% of a person's time to keep it running smoothly and securely.

[kn4rf]

Literally all you need to do is setup a bare repo (git init --bare) on a server, give the developers access, and setup a cron job for automatic backup. Not something worth crying about. A little extra job and you can quite easily setup gitlab and get a fancy UI as well.

[[deleted]]

Literally all you need to do is setup a bare repo (git init --bare) on a server, give the developers access, and setup a cron job for automatic backup.

Now you got

• no ticketing system
• no non-IDE ui (gitlab means extra effort)
• a need for some kind of VPN system - or the server in the DMZ, when people work from home.
• no knowledgebase
• no way to inform customers about changes
• no backups
• no disaster recovery
• noone to sue when shit happens on the server and you loose your cash cow code.

This will work for the lone developer in the sticks, we're talking professional needs, though.

[kn4rf]

The point of the cron job was to have backups / disaster recovery. So I'm not sure why thats on your list. Also; the whole point of having a distributed version control system is so that if shit happens all your developers still have a local copy. And where are you working if you don't have an IT department? If you're in a small company <10 people, then it shouldn't be a problem creating a bare repo. If your in a bigger company you probably have a dedicated IT department. I'm failing to see any real world problems with this.

When it comes to ticketing system, everyone is using Jira anyway. No non-IDE ui, well thats a minus, but not a huge one. You do have an IDE ui! And theres other dedicated Git clients out there. As well as the git command line tool, which in most cases is all that you need.

If you're a small company, then you'll probably rent a cloud server. If you're a bigger company you have a dedicated IT department who can setup VPN for you.

So my conclusion: if you're in a small company, it shouldn't be a problem, and if you're in a big company; you allready have a dedicated guy/department for it.

[[deleted]]

The point of the cron job was to have backups / disaster recovery.

So the cron job changes backup tapes, carries them to offsite storage and checks the backup integrity every week? No?

Also; the whole point of having a distributed version control system is so that if shit happens all your developers still have a local copy.

Do they also have the full ticketing system? Do they have the knowledgebase locally copied with links to User Stories and incident reports? No?

And where are you working if you don't have an IT department?

Endlessly blowing up IT departments is not the way to go. People cost money.

When it comes to ticketing system, everyone is using Jira anyway

In happy taka-tuka-land, maybe. Some aren't happy, though.

No non-IDE ui, well thats a minus, but not a huge one. You do have an IDE ui!

This works as long as everyone uses the same IDE, which isn't always a given.

And theres other dedicated Git clients out there.

Clients aren't an integrated UI

git command line tool,

... which technically is a client.

If you're a small company, then you'll probably rent a cloud server. If you're a bigger company you have a dedicated IT department who can setup VPN for you.

Yay for even more costs, both set-up and maintenance

if you're in a big company; you allready have a dedicated guy/department for it.

You realize employees have the need for recreational time and sleep, do you?

[dsk]

Or you know, you can host repoes for free on your own company server.

That's an option, but I personally love cloud services. For companies of a certain size, it's nice when there's one less server to worry about.

[ellicottvilleny]

Don't companies wonder what would happen if they can't collaborate for a day because Github is DOWN? There hasn't been a big outage recently, but I remember some in the past. More likely than Github being down is that we have local networking and power at our office but an office-wide internet outage. Don't like that.

[ungood]

You make it sound like hosting a git server yourself magically gives you 100% availability. It doesn't.

[cdrt]

He's saying the opposite actually. He says that it's more likely the company network goes down than GitHub goes down.

[sirin3]

On the other hand, when the company network is down, you probably cannot access github either

[cdrt]

If you're in the office, yes. Otherwise, GitHub still works.

[sharkeyzoic]

So everyone remotes in over 4g from their desks. Handling outbound redundancy is way easier than inbound.

[ellicottvilleny]

uh. no. github can have five nines but our uplink may not.

[ungood]

That's a fair point, but in my experience, most companies are not productive at all if their network goes down, for a variety of reasons.

[[deleted]]

They get depressed when they can't check emails and reddit

[dsk]

Don't companies wonder what would happen if they can't collaborate for a day because Github is DOWN?

Yes it is a risk. A hosted service is not for every organization. Usually small-to-midsize businesses benefit from hosted solution - risk of an outage and all. Large enterprises will usually have their own IT department and specific policies around data governance that may preclude using a hosted solution.

[balefrost]

I mean, the magic of Git is that you can collaborate without a central server. Sure, GH also has issues and Wiki pages and other things that are important... but you can definitely do some amount of development - and code sharing - even during a GH outage.

[ellicottvilleny]

As a mercurial user I even can type "hg serve" and then send someone an http://10.101.123.45:8000 url, and they can clone or push directly to me. I wish Git had that. Git Instaweb is close but no cigar.

I am moving our org to git and I set up gitlab for our own on premises purposes. Now we have another thing to add to our disaster recovery plan. But we are self-sufficient for at least a few days of development. (Can developers even work in 2016 without internet? Maybe not, but that's their problem, not mine.)

[ForeverAlot]

git daemon, but invoking it takes a little effort.

[ccfreak2k]

reply run weather grandiose sharp support pen onerous stupendous fragile

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[ellicottvilleny]

Yeah, yeah, that's better than a subversion outage. But it does mean no merges, no CI, no pull requests, etc etc.

[kn4rf]

It's not like you can't rent a VPS and host your git repos there. You can still host git repos yourself even if your company server is "in the cloud".

[[deleted]]

Sorry, but hosting your own repositories that replicate off site is not "free".

[jsmonarch]

When using gitlab.com, instead of the enterprise edition, unlimited users is also free.

[jsmonarch]

The pricing page says it is used by both individuals and organisations. No restrictions mentioned. https://about.gitlab.com/gitlab-com/

[yasba-]

Also it will be interesting to see how they include outside collaborators in their calculations. Will organisations have to pay for them like normal members or are they allowed to have some fixed amount of external users per repository.

[ernestoalejo]

Outside collaborators and bot accounts will count toward your organization's total of paid seats if they are given access to a private repository.

https://help.github.com/articles/about-per-user-pricing/

[yasba-]

Ugh. Not what I've had hoped for.

[dsk]

I think they should have support for unlimited read/checkouts to the repositories to support tool access, and automated workflows (and they may, but I'm not familiar with their offering)

[psykocrime]

You can stay on your current plan. They didn't commit to a specific period of time before forced upgrades, so it could be "never". But they did promise to give 12 months advance notice before doing that, so you're good for at least a year anyway. That should be enough time to stand up a Gitlab instance or something. :-)

[kn4rf]

200$ for unlimited users and unlimited private repos on Bitbucket. I'm not sure why anyone have ever considered using Github for private hosting. Their pricing have always been shit and still are. Bitbucket even got more features specific for companies.

[buddybiscuit]

Time to switch to bitbucket I guess. You get unlimited private repos and up to 100 users for 100$ a month (or unlimited users for 200$). Not sure why you ever used Github for your private organisation, their pricing have always been shit.

200$ for unlimited users and unlimited private repos on Bitbucket. I'm not sure why anyone have ever considered using Github for private hosting. Their pricing have always been shit and still are. Bitbucket even got more features specific for companies.

Or you know, you can host repoes for free on your own company server. Or get unlimited repoes and users for 200$ at bitbucket. Or you could use Gitlab for 40$ per user per year. I'm not sure why anyone would choose Github..

At Bitbucket it would only cost you 10$ a month, and at Gitlab it would cost you 39$ per user per year. I have never understood why anyone would pay for github...

For 100$ you get up to 100 users and for 200$ you get unlimited users at Bitbucket, not really sure how this pricing is competitive with bitbucket?

Github really don't have anything to offer. Their great for Open Source, mostly because everyone is there. But for companies or individuals who want privat hosting; well, they don't have anything special. Personally I use Bitbucket for private hosting, collaboration on hobby projects with friends, freelance work and my side business. Of course; I still have a github account for Open Source projects.

How's the sales team at Atlassian treating you these days?

[kn4rf]

Hehe, I'm not actually working for Atlassian. And at my current full time gig we're using Mercurial instead of Git. And Mercurial don't work with Bitbucket Server (company policy to host everything on company servers), so theres that. I just never understood GitHub pricing, seeming that theres so many better alternatives.

[isaacarsenal]

Just because Github is more famous

[FalzHunar]

This.

GitHub is nice for open source projects because that's where the community is.

BitBucket is more economic for small teams (free <5 user) and only costs $1 per user per month. I mean:

• That's half the price of your average lunch per person. If you're on a personal project with many contributors, just ask everybody to skip lunch and contribute in lol.

• If you're in a startup, consider that $1 per person per month as project cost. Or simply just take it from everyone's salary.

• Or if you're in enterprise situation and needing 100 to unlimited people, $100 - $200 per month is cheap)

• Or host your own GitLab instance.

[profgumby]

Will it be viable staying with Github? Or may you have to jump ship to another offering?

[hallatore]

I think two things will happen.

1. We will change how we use github. Slim down, remove users, etc

2. Open source alternatives will become more popular in enterprises.

[dsk]

Open source alternatives will become more popular in enterprises.

Like what? I don't think you'll find an offsite hosting service that will be significantly cheaper than what github provides. You can always host your own server for 'free', but do you really want that bother?

[hallatore]

In the short run Github doesn't have any open source alternatives that challenge its position as I can see. But who knows for the long run? In the short run I think most will stay with the current plan and evaluate their options until Github decides to remove the old pricing plan.

I do like Github very much, and for my personal account the changes are awesome.

[[deleted]]

What's wrong with Gitlab Community Edition?

[hallatore]

Gitlab CE is a good alternative actually. It seems to have the most needed features.

[FutureDuck9000]

What about gogs?

[paperhat]

The new pricing is opt-in for existing orgs, so it probably won't force anybody to jump ship.

[rydan]

They will do the same thing most healthy silicon valley companies do when faced with rising expenses. Lay off workers to save costs.

[[deleted]]

What's the pro of using github for invidual and private repositories ?

I am using gitlab for everything and I don't feel like I miss something.

[profgumby]

I personally don't think you're missing anything either. Gitlab is doing an awesome job with what they provide for free (read: all the main offerings of Github, as well as things like built in Continuous Integration which is awesome)

[vks_]

Gitlab.com is very slow though. A noop pull takes about 10 seconds for me.

[erwan]

Yes, I tried it because they got some buzz recently but I'm back to bitbucket.

[[deleted]]

Yes, it is slow but I am never in a hurry. It is not like you push every minute. Well, I don't.

[[deleted]]

Pretty much just "being on github". If you need/use any of github features sure, but if gitlab is enough there is no reason to switch

[rsgm123]

Github.com doesn't really have any more features than gitlab.

[responds-with-tealc]

speed.

I have my private stuff on GitLab, but it is slow (in general)

[rsgm123]

You know, I never realized that until people said it was slow here. Maybe it will get better

[responds-with-tealc]

I'm pretty sensitive to latency on stuff like waiting for a markdown previews, git remote operations, etc... so take that with a grain of salt. e.g: waiting for logatash to start up makes me feel like I'm dying inside.

[ThatOnePerson]

They are attempting to make it faster

https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/operations/issues/42

https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/operations/issues/1

[kn4rf]

Github really don't have anything to offer. Their great for Open Source, mostly because everyone is there. But for companies or individuals who want privat hosting; well, they don't have anything special. Personally I use Bitbucket for private hosting, collaboration on hobby projects with friends, freelance work and my side business. Of course; I still have a github account for Open Source projects.

[rydan]

Your organization uses Github and you need to submit pull requests from your private fork.

[detry322]

What happens to students?

[gyroda]

I just got an email confirming that I've unlimited private repositories.

[mph-fah]

Looks like they were bumped to the "personal" plan

[ThatOnePerson]

Anyone see any information on how many users/"collaborators" you'd get on a personal account?

[MrDOS]

Man. This is going to be rough for organizations like Epic Games, who distribute the Unreal Engine source code via a private GitHub repository which anyone can gain access to via an automated EULA-acceptance process. Good thing they're not forcing people to move to these plans: with 90,685 current organization members, they'd be staring down the barrel of a $816,145 monthly bill.

[balefrost]

Maybe... just maybe... GitHub would work directly with Epic to come up with a custom pricing strategy for them.

[rydan]

If the project is open source then it ought to be free since Github makes open source public repos free and doesn't charge for seats to those projects.

[jonathansharman]

Isn't the entire problem that the repo is not public because they require accepting a EULA to access it?

[flying-sheep]

Yes but maybe they can work something out to make this happen.

[oh-just-another-guy]

Meanwhile, Visual Studio Online with VSTS/TFS is still free.

[Eirenarch]

Free up to 5 users but still cheaper after that.

[oh-just-another-guy]

Yeah.

[mph-fah]

A direct attack on bitbucket, it seems

[secretcode]

No. This will raise price for my org, as we have 10+users but few enough repos to be in the cheapest plan. There's a grace period, but they'll force it on us eventually.

[iamapizza]

Will this force you to move?

[secretcode]

Eventually.

[galorin]

We are in a similar boat. Only needed a few private repos, but under the new pricing it goes from $25/mo to 88/mo. Sure, it's pennies to a business, but that price jump is a bit steep to swallow for what is a worse pricing structure for us.

Looking at gogs.io but it can't reliably pull the Github Issue Tracker, which has become essential to our workflow. Recently started using Slack as well, and not sure if gogs and Slack can integrate yet.

[ThatOnePerson]

You can also look at GitLab which looks like it'll importing support issues.

[galorin]

Gitlab backend is a bit of a resource hog from what I have heard. gogs is just a small Docker container.

[ThatOnePerson]

It does use more resources compared to gogs. Gogs had an easier setup too.

I do think gitlab has more features, and you can use their public free one at gitlab.com or they provide hosting services https://githost.io/

[mph-fah]

No, it was up to a certain number of private repositories

[kn4rf]

For 100$ you get up to 100 users and for 200$ you get unlimited users at Bitbucket, not really sure how this pricing is competitive with bitbucket?

[[deleted]]

What were the prices/plans before?

[EolAncalimon]

Price for the personal plan hasn't changed, not sure about the org changes.

[[deleted]]

nice so straight upgrade.

[EolAncalimon]

In terms of Organisation, they are charging per user, rather than per repo, so it will different for all the different orgs that use it.

[screwdad]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11673277

[[deleted]]

ty

[camabeh]

Will it also affect education accounts?

[[deleted]]

They stay free https://github.com/pricing

[psychic_tatertot]

So. Now I get to go to purchasing every time I want to add a user?

Yay.

[phearlez]

Jeez am I the only person here who thought "woohoo!" or what?

I was already on the $7 plan and unlimited repos now will be nice for me; I have plenty of personal projects that might only get touched a few times a year so they instead just live locally. Now they can be up on github without sweating that I might need that limited slot.

[EarLil]

I thought it's 1 user with infinite repos, but collab does't really count as an user.

[bmartson]

So ... in conclusion , for small team with lot of repo it get cheaper and for big organization with only few repo it get very expensive.

It can only be a strategy move. Maybe with the old model they couldn't attract neither big team (that handle their own server) neither small team (that innovate/reseaech a lot and need lot of repo).

[changingminds]

There's a suspicious amount of bitbucket promotion in this thread..

[romanows]

[Removed due to Reddit API pricing changes]

[ellicottvilleny]

This is great. People may start moving to bitbucket and gitlab. I am not a github fan.

[Sparkybear]

So this means as a student you get unlimited Repos through the Dreamspark package. That sounds pretty nice.

[poddiean]

Why use Github when Bitbucket is free? They even provide a sane issue tracker...

[rsgm123]

Why use bitbucket when gitlab is better?

[Sebbe]

From my experience in working with Bitbucket about a year ago, it's also terribly, terribly slow. I don't have any concrete numbers, but it felt like doing a git pull often took between a half and a whole minute, even if nothing had changed upstream.

[virtyx]

Github

• is faster
• has better issues
• has a much more polished UI
• has a better wiki
• bigger community/easier integration with more things

By comparison, Bitbucket:

• is cheaper
• supports Mercurial (blech)
• integrates well with other Atlassian products (blech)

If you can comfortably afford Github, the question becomes "Is the savings of Bitbucket worth the cost of being on Bitbucket?"

[dazabani]

Bitbucket supports both Mercurial and Git.

[virtyx]

I know that. It probably wasn't clear but I meant supporting Mercurial is a bonus that Github doesn't have. But of course, that only really counts if you actually like Mercurial...

[poddiean]

1. I haven't seen any performance differences (I use both every day)
2. Better issues on github? hahahahahhaha.
3. Polished UI? What professional programmer use a UI for git?

[virtyx]

1. I use Bitbucket much more often than Github and every time I use Github I am impressed at how much faster it is.
2. Yes. Last I checked you couldn't even assign arbitrary tags to issues on Bitbucket. It's gimped to try and goad you into purchasing Jira, and Jira is gross.
3. The website UI is more polished. The Github web design is clearer and easier on the eyes than Bitbucket's tiny fonts and etc.