Avoid Atlassian

[Shaun_Dark_Lord]

We've been an Atlassian customer for the best part of a decade.  That's about to come to a very messy end.

 

Each time Atlassian got greedy, and moved a previously included feature behind a new additional service, we found a workaround to keep things going.  But this time they've crossed the line.  User sync is now a $4 per user per month paid feature.

 

Atlassian - If you're reading this - You know where you can shove it.

 

Anyone considering Atlassian, please look elsewhere.

[ZeroHour]

We used to use BitBucket but after various issues with it we migrated away.

 

What services were you using out of interest?

[dmj]

If only. Every five minutes they change the Jira interface, drives me nuts. But it's so well integrated the upheaval to move would be epic. I guess Atlassian know that

I dare not even think how much we are paying. 

 

[steve]

Its the SSO tax: The SSO Wall of Shame | A list of vendors that treat single sign-on as a luxury feature, not a core security requirement.

 

We ditched Atlassian a few months ago (sso and confluence) due to cost.

[jthompson]

16 hours ago, steve said:

Its the SSO tax: The SSO Wall of Shame | A list of vendors that treat single sign-on as a luxury feature, not a core security requirement.

 

We ditched Atlassian a few months ago (sso and confluence) due to cost.

Oh man, I'm glad somebody is keeping a list of offenders!

 

It always puzzles me when SSO is not an option: it's basically some other big tech firm doing the work for them. Doesn't it mean that they can offer best-in-class authentication at no cost to themselves? I'm also puzzled/annoyed when a site offers Microsoft SSO, but not Google?! I mean... c'mon.

[dmj]

54 minutes ago, jthompson said:

Oh man, I'm glad somebody is keeping a list of offenders!

 

It always puzzles me when SSO is not an option: it's basically some other big tech firm doing the work for them. Doesn't it mean that they can offer best-in-class authentication at no cost to themselves? I'm also puzzled/annoyed when a site offers Microsoft SSO, but not Google?! I mean... c'mon.

 

TBF I think it's just a quick way for vendors to differentiate between large companies (that insist on SSO) and smaller ones. Unfortunately Schools/education are an anomaly where they have the user count of a multinational but the budget of a cornershop. 

 

WRT MS but not Google, they use the same standardised Auth methods (SAML, OIDC) so what works for one will work for the other, if you find this it's usually that the vendor hasn't documented how to do it, not that it doesn't work. 

Edited January 16 by dmj

[3s-gtech]

1 hour ago, jthompson said:

Oh man, I'm glad somebody is keeping a list of offenders!

 

It always puzzles me when SSO is not an option: it's basically some other big tech firm doing the work for them. Doesn't it mean that they can offer best-in-class authentication at no cost to themselves? I'm also puzzled/annoyed when a site offers Microsoft SSO, but not Google?! I mean... c'mon.

I implemented Microsoft SSO on our own internal and external web services, and I have the coding capability of a warm bowl of water. No excuse for companies!