Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Sir_Cmpwn 2435 days ago
This language is the classic "defuse, wait, and try again later" approach to shoeing in unpopular changes. They're still hedging their bets with this language, rather than renouncing the original ideas. Apologising for "bad communication" instead of bad changes is another classic deflection move they've pulled in other threads, too.

<disclaimer: founder of a GitLab competitor>
1 comments
mwcampbell 2435 days ago
> <disclaimer: founder of a GitLab competitor>

IMO, if you want to compete with GitLab, you should introduce some higher pricing tiers targeted at businesses. These should be comparable to GitLab's pricing tiers and should not have "hacker" in their names. I also suggest that for these higher pricing tiers, you make it explicit that using the service for closed-source projects is OK.

link
Sir_Cmpwn 2435 days ago
This is good feedback, but I think the bigger issue is the alpha quality of the service. People who move now will have to be tolerant of some pieces being missing or under-documented, which often means a vote of confidence in the future of SourceHut more so than in the present. When the alpha becomes the beta, and then production, the pricing model will be re-evaluated.
link
Aeolun 2434 days ago
Ideally, price it at the $20/month/person price that Gitlab has, because that seems to be the highest that I’m able to sell to Management.

Theoretically $100/month/person would still be a great deal, but the finance people don’t look at it like that. They just see the $97.5/month/person difference with Bitbucket.

link