GitHub:FI publishes pricing
fi.github.com
fi.github.com
I was interested and was waiting to see because this would be something we might consider (50+ developers in 7 teams). But it's not worth it: my man hours to configure Trac + Git (well actually Mercurial here but we could have migrated with ease) costs thousands less. Indeed we would probably need around 80 licenses all told for the occasional contractors, offsite workers and third party contributors. That's about $50,000 a year - and there is no way it could save us that much a year.
Yes you get a neat clean interface and some fancy graphs etc. but, seriously, they arent all that useful day-to-day. We actually use Bitbucket at the moment (and trac internally for super secret projects) and we do not miss the few fancy features from Github.
License it at $200/user and volume license it at $150 (maybe $100) per user over 10 users and $250 per 10 users standard support. Then we'll talk.
Where I work we shell out serious cash per year for software licenses and so on - so it's not a case of us being scrooges: it's just not worth it.
That said: they will sell a bomb load :)
In the end we decided the only way we were going to do it is by pricing it high enough that the enterprise world took us seriously, but keeping in mind that smaller teams want to use it as well.
I think the only way to do that is by charging less than Perforce, but far more than other solutions like CollabNet EE.
In Enterprise nowadays expensive solutions != better. It's the credit crunch :) managers are under the thumb to deliver working solutions for low cost.
Also explains why they haven't replied yet, they're probably hungover. ;)
If I went with this it would be the most expensive software I've bought. We currently use tools such as Trac, git, svn, Eclipse, Hudson, ... all are free and work well. Non-free tools tend to be editors that certain people want to buy and one copy of the full Adobe suite (which is pricey, but I only need one copy).
On the desktop and servers we use Mac OS X (which is pretty cheap).
$600/user/year is a lot of money for something that I'm essentially getting for free with Trac and git integration. As nice as GitHub is that would mean spending $9,000 a year.
This compares badly with say FogBugz at $199 per user for an outright purchase. The only thing it compares with is Perforce which runs around $750/user/year, but... GitHub doesn't give you the source control bit, that's free with git.
At that price you are getting into compiler licensing territory where there's serious value demonstrated. What value is GitHub demonstrating?
if you think it's too expensive, retrospectiva now supports git and has some of the cool features of github and is free as in git.
* 50 Private Repositories help
* 25 Private Collaborators help
* 6 GB Disk Space help
* Unlimited Public Repos/Collaborators
* SSL Protection help
Edit: Here's the blog post I was using to judge the install complexity of Gitorious: http://erikonrails.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/how-to-get-gitor... And after all that, several things still aren't finished:
What’s left to do:
* I haven’t configured ultrasphinx, so search doesn’t work.
* I haven’t set up script/graph_generator, so there are no graphs.
* I have no idea what script/fixup_hooks does. It might be important.gitosis is a really simple collection of scripts that basically allows you to do the same thing with git that you were able to do with SVN by hosting a repository on some server and provide SSH access to it.
Merge requests, merge notifications, easy cloning but also peripheral stuff like bug tracking, wiki and whatnot will all have to come from other places.
Gitorious on the other hand is much closer to github but it is, als you pointed out, a real pain in the butt to install and also has some really nasty assumptions about URLs and SSL in the code that make it even more painful than what it is anyways.
Combine that with no real release schedule, no integration what so ever into any eventually existing authentication infrastructure and very lacking documentation and you'll notice that Gitorious just isn't at a point where it's worth investing time into just yet.
I do think though, that the prices for GitHub:FI as they are revealed now are not really reasonable: You are paying much more than what the most expensive hosted plan costs even if you don't use their support, but you are left with the maintenance of the machine and its backups.
So you are paying more and are left with more work.
And all this because you cannot or do not want to upload your intellectual property onto a third party server (which, in my case, is even located in a foreign country with legislation not properly known to me).
So you are paying more for more work.
When you see this, you will just have to ask yourself, whether the benefits of github will justify the cost.
Installing gitorious is (at least right now) out of the question, but I had really good success with gitosis and redmine.
It's still lacking some web-based way to request (and apply) merges and stuff, but at least it's easy to set up, works and doesn't cost ~$4500/y (that about the price I would pay GitHub:FI for my 6 developers - and this one is way higher than what it cost me to install and even customize gitosis and redmine - and I had to do that once)
But still, using gitosis to host the repositories has some advantages over plain ssh:
* you only need to create one git user
* people don't need shell access to the machine
* you have fine-grained control over who has push access and who doesn't.
But yeah, the visualization and collaboration you don't get. For that you need to decide between Gitorious (doesn't look as nice, real pain to install, but open source and no associated cost aside of your own resources) and GitHub (really good-looking, (probably) easy to install, proprietary and quite expensive).
Judging from Gitorious' current state, I'd say GitHub is, for a non-ruby/rails programmer, less expensive to install and use than Gitorious, but it's still too expensive for what it provides, especially when you compare it to the hosted plans which are cheaper while not leaving you with backup and machine maintenance.
We definitely don't want to host our source on somebody else's machine, and there's no open source solution comparable to github.
It's too expensive for us at the moment, but I can imagine a time when it won't be, and I'll push to get it then.
So, basically, git works by blessing a branch on some server as "master". Since many of us are working on new stuff at the same time, and we don't want to work in master where our work could conflict, but we do want to see each other's changes. Thus, we make branches on that same server which we all track - these are what I mean by public branches.
So, basically this is how I'll work:
* Pick a bug out of the bug tracker
* make a public branch of the current master and call it [name]-fix-[bug #] or [name]-[new feature]
* push fixes/development to that public branch
* ask a coworker to review the branch for merge (this is easy, since it's a public branch they're tracking already)
* make any changes they recommend, rinse and repeat
* merge the public branch into master and push it to the remote repository
The problem with redmine is that it only tracks the master branch, not any of those feature branches that me and my coworkers are working on, whereas github shows them admirably, e.g.: http://github.com/rails/rails/network .
I love git, but redmine is basically unable to cope with the way we work.
Oh and if you want to work this way, this script is invaluable: http://git-wt-commit.rubyforge.org/git-publish-branch