Hacker News Reader

Comment by bitcartel | Hacker News Reader

Bitbucket's self-hosted enterprise product Stash is priced aggressively. It's free for open source projects, non-profits and classrooms. For small teams (up to 10 users), it costs just $10/year, all in, and you get the source code.

http://www.atlassian.com/software/stash/pricing

Contrast with Github where the minimum purchase is 1 seat pack (up to 20 users), costing $5000/year, and you don't get any access to the the source code.

https://enterprise.github.com/pricing

View on HN

I use RhodeCode for a small team (https://bitbucket.org/marcinkuzminski/rhodecode).

It does not have all the features of github or bitbucket but is selfhosting and opensource.

I am really curious: Why does getting access to the source code matter?

(I am just asking since it seems to be a selling point, and I have never really modified the code of a tool that I have used. For example, how many people modify Eclipse, or Maven, or BugZilla's source code?)

Stash allows you to customize your deployment... database, server platform and develop plugins.

Having the source is critical to develop tightly integrated plugins for customization.

You can fix bugs, customize the interface to your liking, stuff like this? It's basically another selling point, no? (Haven't tried it myself)

Just thinking out loud...maybe the customer would like to make a modification or two? Is it better to _not_ have the source code?

Stash's internals are completely extensible. Having access to the source allows you to extend and modify it to fit your needs. On top of that, you can build features (i.e., plugins) on top of Stash that you can share or sell to other Stash users on Atlassian's Marketplace.

I regularly need the source code for Maven or its plugins to check where exactly a bug is that I am experiencing.

I think it's targeted to startups who want to do costs savings. As they'll probably retain them when they grow, the pricing goes 180 times more expensive for the next plan. It's still a lot cheaper than Github, though.

We recently moved to GitHub Enterprise and it really is not as expensive as it looks. It is $250/year per developer... not really that much considering what you get. Plus it is a virtual server provided for us, so we just have to upload software upgrade packages to get the latest updates. We didn't have to spend the money on someone to set up all of the MySql, Redis, Solr, etc. services to get it running. So honestly I consider GitHub Enterprise to be quite a cost savings. Just a counterpoint...

EDIT: We are not a startup, but still something to consider.

Oh, I just realized the $10 was for a year but not a month.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com