If $8 is a big deal per user, how little are you paying the poor bastards?

I guess he's not paying his employees 900% market rate, why would he pay 900% market rate for GitHub instead of BitBucket? Just trying to point that your logic doesn't check out.

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 :)

You believe bitbucket represents the market?

Market (feature set requirements) is different for everybody. If bitbucket's features are enough for me to migrate off github it's absolutely market. 9 times cheaper at that.

What's so broken in Bitbucket that's not worth at 1/9th the price of Github.com?

I don't know who gives them advice, but that's just horrible.

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.

god beware if your open source project needs a single private repository to share passwords between admins for example or private config for your webserver. Suddenly you see yourself at 394$ compared to the 7$ you paid before.

> beware if your open source project needs a single private repository to share passwords

Passwords emphatically do not belong in git.

Your private repos should be maintained such that accessing them would not compromise your security.

if you share Ansible inventory files that are encrypted with ansible-vault, then this is not happening. But i still wouldn't want to have a public repository with the files and the metadata of servers that is clearly not meant for public consumption.

Let me brig another example for OSS projects that could need a private repository: branches for security fixes that are not public yet.

> "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.

> a single private repository to share passwords between admins

Please tell me you're kidding.

I hope that any team using github to share passwords is driven to move away from that method because of this price change. That's a bad bad idea.

Why? If it is Encrypted in ansible vault or something it's not a terrible way to keep your creds.

I think that wasn't clear initially. But granted, valid point.

If they're encrypted, you can put them in a public repo.

Call it overkill, but I would see no reason not to go both private repo + encrypted creds.

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?

What's wrong with using Dropbox or something like that?

Bitbucket seems to be at least in large part a subsidized loss-leader to the rest of the Atlassian infrastructure. And, legit question: how do you feel about Jira?

I don't mind Jira, with the exclusion of the abominably confusing user management[1]. I've never found a ticketing system that didn't suck in some major way; it's a difficult thing to get right.

[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...

It's actually 2500% more expensive for the first 5 users. Github will never learn.

I think for the first five users the price is capped at $25 total ($5/user).

I think you are correct. Boy that is a confusing way to word it on Github's end.

Maybe it's time to charge more for those closed source projects, just saying..

* 800% more expensive