Hacker News Reader

Comment by odonnellryan | Hacker News Reader

You have 300 employees and an extra $6/mo/em is going to break you? How much do you spend on toilet paper? :)

Haha we probably spend a lot on toilet paper as we have ~5k employees (FTSE 100 company) but that isn't the point I was trying to make :-) it doesn't matter how big or rich you are - if costs for a thing increase by x3.5 it's probably going to have an impact. I'm no enterprise-lover and we spend tons of money on crap with annoys me but I'm not in a position to change that.

We are not a "technology company" (and unfortunately I'm not the CTO!) so we will have to report upwards that costs will be increasing x3.5. Their reaction will probably be to ask us to investigate alternatives.

It looks like smaller companies/startups will benefit much more from this change which is fair enough to charge the big boys more really.

I'm not asking anyone to get their violins out but it makes me a little sad that we may have to move away from GitHub. On the flip side, GitLab has been looking great lately!

Doesn't say they are employees.

So it's an open source project?

I guess it can be a NFP that has closed-source repos. But why?

Doesn't have to be OS. It could be a commercial product that grants access to the source.

It's possible, but that's a weird requirement (weird you'd want all your clients on the same repo, anyway) and you'd be able to circumvent this and come out pretty swell on the other side if that money is really worth it to you.

Why would they not use the same repo? It can easily be a standard product - look at the example further downthread of the unreal engine: All clients get access to the code. 2 private repos and 90657 users.

That's an extreme example, but we also have a single repo that a lot of collaborators get access to.

That's a good point. It still seems like an odd use-case!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com