It speaks to github's prominence in the open source community and Atlassians's prominence in professional/enterprise environments.
WHY? Free private repos unlimited in number of repos only limited on how many can access them.
So all my .config files and anything private goes to BitBucket. Great product for my own use.
Assuming it’s for redundancy, why not just copy the folders as part of a normal backup?
You mean the version control system would be... distributed!?
My money would be on Dropbox busting your repo somehow. I don't think Dropbox is an ideal solution for pushing/pulling git repos from.
If your decision about where to host your code repos is decided by how pretty the webpage to create pull-requests is, the wrong people are making decisions such in your business.
Having said all that, I'm currently using bitbucket for a private work repo because I'm cheap :)
The more GitHub seems to adjust itself, the less I enjoy it. The more BitBucket seems to try to copy GitHub, the less I enjoy it. At the end of the day, I probably want GitHub circa 2008. I find when they really became opinionated about things to be the inflection point about whether they pushed things that were truly more usable.
That's not to say your view of things is wrong for you. But I don't think it's clear that "in this case, it definitely bears out".
I want it too :) A time-machine style forward & back, showing changes to a file.
i.e. whether the gui is well designed.
When we were making the decision at my company, we went with Github because the dev team cared about having the little green squares show up on the "activity" chart for their account's... I know, petty, but it's something, and since most of us do FOSS projects, it's a status thing.
It used to be any commit that made it into a repo's master branch, the green squares showed up, even if it was a private repo (it just didn't show details of the repo to public users). But now, those don't show up to the public, only the user themselves sees them while logged in... so if we were making the decision today, I'd probably lean towards Bitbucket.
Just to clarify, GH's pricing doesn't actually grow exponentially. The per repo price gets lower the more you pay for:
5 private repos: $7
10 private repos: $12
20 private repos: $22
50 private repos: $50
For an internal-dev team which generates a great deal of new repos throughout the year (one-off scripts/programs for different departments, etc...), this adds up very quickly.
If you reach that 126th repo, it jumps to $450 monthly or $5,400 a year. At those prices you get questions from Accounting about why we aren't hosting this internally...
On the other hand, GitHub's stuff generally does feel nicer to use and better and more thoughtfully UX'd.
I assume it has some features that are paid (or only work with Bitbucket?), but I've found it brilliant for managing GH repos - one of the nicest free tools I use.
We have a little over a hundred repositories. This puts is in the $200/mo plan for GitHub (125 repository limit).
Atlassian prices per-user. Our small three person dev team costs us nothing. We'll reach the next pricing tier when we hit our 6th developer, at which point it will cost us $10/mo and will remain that cost up to 10 developers.
BitBucket's top plan is $200/mo. That gets you unlimited repositories and users compared to GitHub's 125 repositories.
In the middle tier, GitHub charges $50/mo for 20 repositories whereas BitBucket charges $50/mo for 50 users.
If you have few repositories but many users, GitHub's pricing is advantageous. If you have many repositories but few users, BitBucket makes way more sense.