Compared to products like Salesforce, GitHub seems cheap to me.
What to you is a fair price and why?
What to you is a fair price and why?
I work in a small agency, and our GitHub bill will go down as a result of these changes.
A good marketing department should display things in a positive fashion, but they should also strive to be honest, so they're not loosing credibility.
I recall GitHub doing some extensive research on what their customer based wanted. This is most likely the outcome of that research.
If I were to migration our org. over we would be worse off. Even with that I don't think this move is disingenuous. Poorly thought through perhaps?
I never said that I consider the move disingenuous. Almost no change will unilaterally benefit everybody. I dislike the communication that reads as if the change is unilaterally beneficial - where it clearly is not.
And GitHub is also allowing everyone to make a choice. "...you'll have at least 12 months notice before any mandated change to your plan."
ps. No pricing model will suit every org. The current model based on repo numbers has horrid steps which make no sense. eg. 125to300 private repos = $200to$450 cost. So if you need 126 repos you pay more than twice as much for that extra 1 repo. That makes little sense to me.
Recognizing the repository steps are a pain for customers and not moving towards a pricing per _single_ repository, say between 1$ or 2$ per private repository - is just plain misleading. They could have still thrown in the personal plan with a large number of private repositories and fewer collaborators.
To me, give a per user or private repo cost. Allow the customer to choose between user or repo model, each addition costs a single fixed unit. Simple!
Sure it's going to cost some orgs more, and it makes sense that it does. I'd wager that data at rest (lots of repos) costs a hell of lot less to run than active requests (lots of users).
Personally my bill will be going down from $25 to $7, and I'm fine with that.
My companies bill will be going down from $650/month to $583/month.
Also, more users = more problems.
At $9/user/mo, github is 900% more expensive than the $1/user/mo direct competitor BitBucket. BitBucket uses brackets rather than pure scaling, but their most expensive option - 101 users require the $200 unlimited accounts plan - is still only $2/user.
First, people ran to bitbucket visit if the per repo pricing. Now that that's been fixed, we're faced with high costs per user. That difference can be used to purchase other Atlassian products like Jira and Bamboo.
How can github beat that value? I think github is satisfied with bring #1 for hosting open source software.
Please tell me you're kidding.
Passwords emphatically do not belong in git.
Your private repos should be maintained such that accessing them would not compromise your security.
Let me brig another example for OSS projects that could need a private repository: branches for security fixes that are not public yet.
A private git server would probably be better for that, but also wouldn't cost $0.
Is ansible vault encryption brute force proof? I have no idea. I could spend an hour and figure out. But why not just follow decent engineering principles and double lock my door?
I personally like the new pricing, but as a non-paying user of GitHub and BitBucket... I'll stick to BitBucket for my private repos :) I guess they don't give a damn as I'm still not paying either :)
[1] Somewhere I've got a screenshot I made that has arrows pointing to the four locations in Confluence where you can find different ways of adjusting user perms (jira uses the same user system). This doesn't include the location where you actually manage your Atlassian licenses...