GitHub:FI publishes pricing

nah, too expensive.<p>I was interested and was waiting to see because this would be something we might consider (50+ developers in 7 teams). But it's not worth it: my man hours to configure Trac + Git (well actually Mercurial here but we could have migrated with ease) costs thousands less. Indeed we would probably need around 80 licenses all told for the occasional contractors, offsite workers and third party contributors. That's about $50,000 a year - and there is no way it could save us that much a year.<p>Yes you get a neat clean interface and some fancy graphs etc. but, seriously, they arent all that useful day-to-day. We actually use Bitbucket at the moment (and trac internally for super secret projects) and we do not miss the few fancy features from Github.<p>License it at $200/user and volume license it at $150 (maybe $100) per user over 10 users and $250 per 10 users standard support. Then we'll talk.<p>Where I work we shell out serious cash per year for software licenses and so on - so it's not a case of us being scrooges: it's just not worth it.<p>That said: they will sell a bomb load :)

I know the github guys are on HN, so I'd love to hear how they arrived on those prices. They seem very reasonable if not cheap to me, and I'm very interested in the inside scoop.

I'm the CTO of a startup in London.<p>If I went with this it would be the most expensive software I've bought. We currently use tools such as Trac, git, svn, Eclipse, Hudson, ... all are free and work well. Non-free tools tend to be editors that certain people want to buy and one copy of the full Adobe suite (which is pricey, but I only need one copy).<p>On the desktop and servers we use Mac OS X (which is pretty cheap).<p>$600/user/year is a lot of money for something that I'm essentially getting for free with Trac and git integration. As nice as GitHub is that would mean spending $9,000 a year.<p>This compares badly with say FogBugz at $199 per user for an outright purchase. The only thing it compares with is Perforce which runs around $750/user/year, but... GitHub doesn't give you the source control bit, that's free with git.<p>At that price you are getting into compiler licensing territory where there's serious value demonstrated. What value is GitHub demonstrating?

This is significantly cheaper than I expected it to be. Less than half what the Macbook costs. A few billable hours per developer. It's not a bad deal.

Version control does not require graphs. Git takes 30 seconds to set up. There are many free web front ends, and gui's, and of course the good old command line. If you have non-capable people who you need to provide some kind of system to see pretty graphs and talk about schedules, there is no reason for it to be in the VCS.

Pricing looks to be comparable to what you spend on Perforce.

github fi looks great...<p>if you think it's too expensive, retrospectiva now supports git and has some of the cool features of github and is free as in git.

For 600/year you get the following and it's hosted.<p><pre><code> * 50 Private Repositories help * 25 Private Collaborators help * 6 GB Disk Space help * Unlimited Public Repos/Collaborators * SSL Protection help </code></pre> There are some obvious advantage of hosting your own.

Am I missing something? Just install gitosis and save yourself the $600/user/year