Hacker News Reader

You git what you pay for.

(Actually, there are long established yet less high profile alternatives with decent features and better pricing for commercial teams, like beanstalk or unfuddle or codebasehq. No hip cred, but for example supporting archived projects that you can read w/o using up your repo count license.)

View on HN

Unfuddle, while good for its day, is not even close to GitHub. It's woefully out of date, slow, and temperamental in ways that are frustrating. The closest thing going is Bitbucket which is a pretty good competitor for GitHub...in 2010.

This argument also works the other way. We payed less for beanstalk and got half the features. Sure it was a remote git repo, but our use case for GitHub is more than just external storage, and we were able to remove other tools that we were paying for.

We've been developing custom software for over a decade. GitHub's pricing model counts every private repo, active or not, while others let you put repos into R/W or archive mode, or don't count repos at all and only count against your storage quota.

The difference in annual cost is significant when you have 20 active independent projects, and hundreds of archived projects, not to mention all the customers needing accounts and access.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com