[theboss]

Can I ask here? Why do a lot of companies insist on keeping their code on GitHub?

It seems expensive and they have many service outages from DDoS attacks.

It seems like someone could set up their 10 different git servers for a fraction of the price and have greater up-time due to redundancy.

And securing your own isn't rocket science either...

What am I not seeing that is the big draw to github?

[aeontech]

We already have redundancy - since git is distributed, Github going down does not impact our development or deployment.

Github provides a great user experience for discussion and managing branches/pull requests. Issue tracking is usable enough that some companies find it sufficient.

The cost is literally unnoticeable for pretty much any company.

"Many" service outages is an exaggeration, I think. It's just selection bias - if you don't use github, and the only time you hear about it is when they get attacked, you'll have an impression that they are under constant attack.

For the companies I have worked at, in short, there was no downside, and decent upside to using it.

[tomschlick]

1) Developer Familiarity 2) They have one of the first (and best) pull request workflows and people again are familiar with it. 3) They are a big name that you can be sure wont be going anywhere anytime soon 4) For a business spending a little extra to not have the headache of managing it yourself is worth it

That all being said I use CodeBaseHQ for my company's repos as they have a better model of projects with repos in them than just repos.

[Anderkent]

It's not about git, it's about the addons. The inline code review is amazing. Issue tracker is decent, and with things like huboard easily sufficient for project management. Email notifications are useful, the ability to work from anywhere as long as you have your ssh key invaluable.

The downtimes are... regrettble. But our company moved to github a while ago, and everyone is mostly happy.

[selectnull]

There are a lot of companies out there who do not have a system administrator capable of setting up or maintaining (the latter is more difficult and time consuming) its own server. GitHub is a solution to that and is quite cheap.

[theboss]

Is it cheap? If I was hypothetically an app company with many customers I could easily have a thousand private repos.

When I checked github (I tried to check again now but their site is down) it would cost something like $1,500 bucks...It seems like I would be getting gouged.

[wldlyinaccurate]

A thousand repos is a bit much, don't you think? I've worked for some pretty big agencies before and the number of active projects has never been more than 50-60. That's only going to cost you around $50/month.

The reason I say active is because even if you do have a thousand repos, you're surely not maintaining all of them - that would be insane. You would probably have 950 repos which would be better off archived, backed-up, and removed from GitHub.

[selectnull]

On surface, 1500 bucks seems very expensive. But if I had 1500 private repos (supposedly that means 1500 or little bit less clients) I'm making so much money that 1500 bucks/month looks very cheap. And still much cheaper than paying for full time sys admin (which doesn't mean that you don't employ one or several).

Having said that, personally, I prefer BitBucket pricing scheme where I can have unlimited private repos and paying per number of users.

[Doublon]

Probably for all the "sugar" around git: code reviews and all the other collaborative tools they provide.