←back to thread

Sourcegraph went dark

(eric-fritz.com)
424 points kaycebasques | 5 comments | 20 Aug 24 03:30 UTC | HN request time: 1.952s | source
Show context
iddan ◴[20 Aug 24 09:39 UTC] No.41298398[source]▶
I wonder from all the people commenting here how much they relied on Source Graph, and how many actually paid for it. Running an open-source company is hard, just like running any company is. Sometimes you understand there are things you just can't give out for free, and that's part of maturing as a company.
replies(3): >>41298505 #>>41298952 #>>41302581 #
pjmlp ◴[20 Aug 24 10:00 UTC] No.41298505[source]▶
100% this.

Devs have to learn the hard way to behave like the other professionals, want nice things to stay around?

Pay for the tools.

replies(3): >>41298614 #>>41301578 #>>41301994 #
hk__2 ◴[20 Aug 24 17:23 UTC] No.41301994[source]▶
This tool is $49/user/mo. That’s more than the price I pay for a single 12-core + 64GB RAM server!

Edit: Ah, and it’s 50 users minimum, so the starting price is $2450/mo.

replies(2): >>41302066 #>>41307081 #
1. kstrauser ◴[20 Aug 24 17:32 UTC] No.41302066[source]▶
Ouch. That's also well above the threshold where we'd have to get IT approval to use them as a vendor, complete with security reviews, comparison shopping with other vendors, bringing in the legal team to look at the contract, etc. It's not "just" writing a check for $30K and calling it a day.
replies(1): >>41307458 #
2. morgante ◴[21 Aug 24 06:44 UTC] No.41307458[source]▶
The unfortunate truth (that I've had to learn the hard way as a founder) is that whole IT approval process is inevitable for any vendor indexing source code.

Even when I've tried to offer lower price tiers, ~every company of 20+ people puts a ton of bureaucracy in place before disclosing source code. Dealing with this bureaucracy has a fixed cost, so it's inevitable that many companies end up excluding the lower end entirely.

replies(1): >>41312093 #
3. kstrauser ◴[21 Aug 24 16:57 UTC] No.41312093[source]▶
The sweetest words in any purchase: "on prem". It avoids so very many such hassles.
replies(1): >>41312244 #
4. morgante ◴[21 Aug 24 17:14 UTC] No.41312244{3}[source]▶
Customers who insist on on prem require the most support burden and hassles.

Have you shipped commercial on-prem software? Nobody wants to do it for <$1k. It's miserable.

replies(1): >>41314202 #
5. kstrauser ◴[21 Aug 24 21:07 UTC] No.41314202{4}[source]▶
I have and you're right. But in the context we're discussing here of buying software that has access to sensitive company data, on-prem is so much easier to approve.