Re:GitHub Raises $250M at $2B Valuation
by ghuntley on Thursday July 30, 2015 @01:49AM
(#9973328)
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Nope, the enterprise version is _not_ the exact same ruby/chef codebase. See for example this blogpost [1] where they announce LDAP sync. New features are often released on the public Github before they are included into a new github enterprise release.
That being said, the enterprise version is very close to the public version. They are probably branches of the same repositories.
There are four distinct products in production (public, firewall, ghe v1 and ghe v2). I've explored the internals between all of the minor and major enterprise releases over a beer or two on a lazy afternoon. The initial product was a separate spin-off and there was definitely product convergence at the ghe v2 stage which appears to be based off public. My best uninformed, informed guess as of v2 they are now on the same branch, potentially using feature flags to enable/disable behavior to reduce maintenance/support overhead. Extremely interesting stuff can be found at the pre-install and immediate post-install stage (use standard forensics tools + granular vmware snapshots to produce diffs) that's all I will say on the topic however.
Any CTO signing off on $37,500USD a year for 150 developers, when you can get unlimited developers on Bitbucket for $2,400, probably needs to be fired.
I see you have not had much experience with large companies; $37k is nothing there are line managers who can sign off on amounts larger than this :-)
An ability to sign off more than that does not mean it's a good use of company money.
Are you sure?
The price of the Github's service is ~$20.8 per developer per month. This is about 10-30 minutes of developers time worth per month. Adapting to Bitbucket's workflow and learning its UI would take much more time.
If you've hired a developer for whom using Bitbucket instead of Github takes 10-30 minutes more effort a month, you need to rereview your hiring process.