Re:BitBucket vs. GitLab.com
by teacup50 on Friday April 17, 2015 @11:10AM
(#9394774)
GitHub means tying your company's incredibly valuable central assets to a 3rd-party hosted service, despite the service being brain-dead-easy to host locally.
If you're avoiding servers, that also means that you have different accounts for every SaaS service replacement you use, and administering permissions and accounts means a lot of extra and pointless labor.
Using custom code to facilitate your business' processes -- such as server-side plugins for things like your source control -- becomes impossible.
Business processes become dependent on SaaS + data dependence that can't easily be exported from the SaaS services, and you're paying out the nose for them every month -- locally licensed software is cheaper, for quite obvious reasons, all across the board.
All so that you can avoid a once-in-N years failure of a hard drive and running apt-get?
No thanks. That's an insane cost/benefit analysis.
Server administration should be easier than it is, but it's not hard, and I'm not about to make every other business process worse just to avoid it.
If you're avoiding servers, that also means that you have different accounts for every SaaS service replacement you use, and administering permissions and accounts means a lot of extra and pointless labor.
Using custom code to facilitate your business' processes -- such as server-side plugins for things like your source control -- becomes impossible.
Business processes become dependent on SaaS + data dependence that can't easily be exported from the SaaS services, and you're paying out the nose for them every month -- locally licensed software is cheaper, for quite obvious reasons, all across the board.
All so that you can avoid a once-in-N years failure of a hard drive and running apt-get?
No thanks. That's an insane cost/benefit analysis.
Server administration should be easier than it is, but it's not hard, and I'm not about to make every other business process worse just to avoid it.