And I'm arguing that his displeasure with GitHub's price comes from the fact that he's underestimating the extra amount of time he will have to spend as a user of CodePlane because CodePlane is not remotely as polished as GitHub. I'm arguing that this extra amount of time will not be worth the difference in price.
Yes, I get that. I just don't agree, and presumably he doesn't either.
It's not just collaboration and web stuff, it's reliability and security. Would you seriously trust a tiny service like CodePlane to store your code? Both ensuring it won't be deleted and that it won't be hacked into? If DropBox has trouble with those issues, would you trust a low-budget one-man-operation with your 50 repos?
And GitHub started as... what, exactly? A tiny low-budget one-man operation? Everybody's gotta start somewhere. Maybe CodePlane doesn't meet your reliability and security requirements today, but there's nothing saying it won't in 3-6 months.
And regardless, this is Git we're talking about. Every repository clone is a full backup. If you're still concerned, add a post-commit hook that also pushes to another server you control, or set up a cron job that does rsync every now and then. I'd do the exact same thing on GitHub as well -- why would you trust GitHub to never have an issue that might render their backups useless? It's certainly not the first time this has happened to a service that does their own backups. If there's data you really care about, you must maintain your own backups. At the very least use an online backup solution (or something like Dropbox). Maybe not something you control, but at least it's pretty unlikely that both services would fail at the same time.
When people evaluate programmers they often have to rely on far-from-perfect metrics, like university credentials. Putting emphasis on GitHub and ignoring the other forges is not ideal, but it's such a big improvement over the old ways. It's hard to get new metrics accepted into the mainstream.
Yeah, that's true. That was more of a mini-rant on my part than an endorsement of anything non-GitHub.
Yes, I get that. I just don't agree, and presumably he doesn't either.
It's not just collaboration and web stuff, it's reliability and security. Would you seriously trust a tiny service like CodePlane to store your code? Both ensuring it won't be deleted and that it won't be hacked into? If DropBox has trouble with those issues, would you trust a low-budget one-man-operation with your 50 repos?
And GitHub started as... what, exactly? A tiny low-budget one-man operation? Everybody's gotta start somewhere. Maybe CodePlane doesn't meet your reliability and security requirements today, but there's nothing saying it won't in 3-6 months.
And regardless, this is Git we're talking about. Every repository clone is a full backup. If you're still concerned, add a post-commit hook that also pushes to another server you control, or set up a cron job that does rsync every now and then. I'd do the exact same thing on GitHub as well -- why would you trust GitHub to never have an issue that might render their backups useless? It's certainly not the first time this has happened to a service that does their own backups. If there's data you really care about, you must maintain your own backups. At the very least use an online backup solution (or something like Dropbox). Maybe not something you control, but at least it's pretty unlikely that both services would fail at the same time.
When people evaluate programmers they often have to rely on far-from-perfect metrics, like university credentials. Putting emphasis on GitHub and ignoring the other forges is not ideal, but it's such a big improvement over the old ways. It's hard to get new metrics accepted into the mainstream.
Yeah, that's true. That was more of a mini-rant on my part than an endorsement of anything non-GitHub.