from Hacker News

AWS CodeCommit

by rjsamson on 7/9/15, 2:47 PM with 60 comments

• by mangeletti on 7/9/15, 5:07 PM

  In my opinion, GitHub has demonstrated how a good monopoly[1] can operate. They're quick to respond to problems, they act ethically for the most part, their pricing is a far-cry from the type of gouging most monopolies get away with, and their product continues to get better and better. GitHub also makes it easy for new developers to get started with Git, and their UI has many awesome features that keep getting better.

  As Peter Thiel would say, because they have a monopoly, they have money to spend on things (e.g., improving their product) other than competing themselves out of business.

  All that being said, where is the market gap that AWS seeks to fill, other than hosting of large-sized files (scientific / big data applications, etc.), and perhaps the user management, which I feel is a bit outmoded and cumbersome?

  1. I think it's fair to say GitHub has a monopoly on paid Git hosting

• by ppierald on 7/9/15, 3:59 PM

  The one thing that is appealing to an "AWS shop" and something that GitHub and other services have a harder time emulating is the integration with IAM (user authentication and provisioning) and the CloudTrail (audit trails). For any reasonably sized organization, ensuring that users get provisioned / deprovisioned is a tricky, error-prone task. Having IAM as a single toggle is nice. Using their SAML integration into something like Okta, OneLogin, or other IaaS-providers ... even better. Getting user activity into centralized logging via CloudTrail (Splunk, Sumo, ELK, et al.) is best practice for security teams. AWS makes all of this pretty easy, but at a price.

• by sirius87 on 7/9/15, 3:41 PM

  I don't see myself switching to this, but I'm glad it exists. After Google Code was shut down, it was clear that GitHub would remain miles ahead of any competition, making it the default choice for most orgs. That worries me quite a bit.

• by quicksilver03 on 7/9/15, 3:47 PM

  Bitbucket seems cheaper than CodeCommit if you have repositories under 2GB. However, once you get over this size, for example with lots of binaries, Bitbucket stops being an option and CodeCommit looks very interesting.

  GitHub doesn't explicitly states that they will disable pushing once the repository size crosses a threshold, but I don't think that they will allow multi-gigabyte repositories either.

• by bbrazil on 7/9/15, 3:37 PM

  Pricing: https://aws.amazon.com/codecommit/pricing/

  $1 per user/month, with plenty of free storage (10GB) each. 2k git requests/month sounds a bit low though if you're doing anything automated. There is a good free tier.

• by anton_gogolev on 7/9/15, 3:18 PM

  And again, no Mercurial. Have we lost?

• by phragg on 7/9/15, 6:00 PM

  Amazon seriously needs a new front-end dev.

• by iagooar on 7/9/15, 3:19 PM

  Amazon going into Github's and Gitlab's space. I wonder how they will react to this and how this might affect them.

• by clebio on 7/9/15, 6:13 PM

  I am logged in to AWS console and don't find CodeCommit. Am I missing something?

• by cevn on 7/9/15, 3:28 PM

  I'm a little confused. Why would I use this instead of Github?

• by zxcvcxz on 7/9/15, 3:18 PM

  It looks like we're talking about these new AWS features whether we want to or not..