A couple of years ago I wanted to put my open source projects on GitLab, as I was thinking... "why is the biggest open source hub not open source". Back then the GitLab CI was much better compared to alternatives, and I had a couple of other features that I liked on GitLab.
I tried for a couple of months, and gave up. I switched back to GitHub for a couple of reasons.
- After some time, GitHub's CI became a thing, it became good enough for me (and other features improved, too).
- Companies want to see your GitHub profile. Publishing your work on GitLab is not going to get you the same exposure as publishing on GitHub.
- Open-source contributors are on GitHub. The majority is not going to create a GitLab account just to fix a bug or open an issue in my little library. If you want community, it's on GitHub.
- Hosting open-source really didn't seem to be a priority for GitLab, so if they don't seem to care, why should I?
- GitLab's quality started to decrease. More bloat (both in terms of UI and code size), slower and slower app whereas GitHub hit the sweet spot of keeping things simple while providing essential features that are fast.
Yes, but see, this is exactly what we ought to fight. No?
I don't want to be forced to host my open source projects at Microsoft. Or any place really. I don't think there should be any centralization for project hosting.
GitLab.com is not perfect neither, it requires users to run reCAPTCHA. This is forced Google spying for any GitLab users and therefore potential contributors.
I really want this fad that considers platforms hosting projects as social networks to end.
> - Open-source contributors are on GitHub. The majority is not going to create a GitLab account just to fix a bug or open an issue in my little library. If you want community, it's on GitHub.
This is a double-edged sword, because it means that your project will receive a lot of trivial issues/requests. I've seen more than one complaint that the having to handle the amount of requests in an open source project made it more than a daily job than a enjoyable activity
Ideally you want to make it easy for people that care to contribute, but not too easy in order to avoid "spam".
> The majority is not going to create a GitLab account just to fix a bug or open an issue in my little library
FWIW, GL supports a lot of social auth providers, including GitHub: https://gitlab.com/users/sign_in/ (you may have to open that in an incognito window to see the login choices, but there are 5 of them currently)
> The majority is not going to create a GitLab account just to fix a bug or open an issue in my little library.
Honestly, that sounds like a selling point. Having a road bump so that people who show up in issues are motivated should cut down on the zero effort drive by bug reports.
I've been a loyal gitlab user since before it turned into the absolute beast it is now. I even considered applying there because I like their values. Only problem is, I've never written a line of ruby.
I really don't look forward to having to move to yet another platform. Will probably just host my own repo's if that time arrives.
> GitLab's quality started to decrease. More bloat (both in terms of UI and code size), slower and slower app whereas GitHub hit the sweet spot of keeping things simple while providing essential features that are fast.
Honestly, this is why I switched my previous company and my personal repos to Github. GitLab has always felt slow as molasses, with unintuitive UI.
That's too bad. Gitlab is the code host that doesn't use HTML. They're even more hostile to HTML than Microsoft Github. It's infeasible to use or even look at a directly listing on gitlab in a browser older than a year or two. It's all javascript over there, and not generic javascript: bleeding edge JS that only works in megacorp browsers.
The one thing I think GitHub is missing is a solid, well thought out bug/project/ticket management system. Issues is too basic, and Projects are only really collections of Issues.
I think GitLab's issue tracker has a lot of usability issues, but it fits the template of an issue tracker (mostly defined by Jira) much better. For those selecting a new platform for a large project or organisation, I can completely understand GitLab's issue tracker being a safer bet than GitHub.
I actually really appreciate GitHub issues for its simplicity: just a list of issues that need addressing. I found most more "advanced" systems to be much harder to use and get an overview of things, especially with larger projects. I found that "just a list of things" with some labels usually works best both from a programmer's and from a management perspective.
I would say GitHub is also missing CI. After having worked with GitHub Actions I cannot say I am impressed. It feels more like an MVP than a real CI system. It also as frequent outages.
They now added achievements 5 days ago. I have an achievement for having "opened pull requests that have been merged". It really is becoming a social network.
Never occured to me before, but you're right, and it's an interesting way of putting it.
Github boasts "83 million developers", but I think the number of actual developers is probably closer to 0.83 million (which is still a very large amount).
But of course I am an insensitive jerk who likes to exclude people, because I think to be called a developer it takes more than registering an account, creating a repo with a couple of broken files and add noise to the signal.
Gitlab restricts its free offering while Github enhances it. I don't know about instagram, but if you're cheap and want free ride, Github just better. Gitlab is open source which is huge for self-hosting and that's about it.
Sourceforge has been more or less abandoned/forgotten for the past five years. Some projects continue to stick to it though due to inertia and laziness.
I'm going to wager not. I think this is a classic case of something making it to HN or the HN crowd finding it interesting, but in reality, GitHub is probably doing more than fine and continuing to grow.
[+] [-] serial_dev|3 years ago|reply
I tried for a couple of months, and gave up. I switched back to GitHub for a couple of reasons.
- After some time, GitHub's CI became a thing, it became good enough for me (and other features improved, too).
- Companies want to see your GitHub profile. Publishing your work on GitLab is not going to get you the same exposure as publishing on GitHub.
- Open-source contributors are on GitHub. The majority is not going to create a GitLab account just to fix a bug or open an issue in my little library. If you want community, it's on GitHub.
- Hosting open-source really didn't seem to be a priority for GitLab, so if they don't seem to care, why should I?
- GitLab's quality started to decrease. More bloat (both in terms of UI and code size), slower and slower app whereas GitHub hit the sweet spot of keeping things simple while providing essential features that are fast.
[+] [-] jraph|3 years ago|reply
Yes, but see, this is exactly what we ought to fight. No?
I don't want to be forced to host my open source projects at Microsoft. Or any place really. I don't think there should be any centralization for project hosting.
GitLab.com is not perfect neither, it requires users to run reCAPTCHA. This is forced Google spying for any GitLab users and therefore potential contributors.
I really want this fad that considers platforms hosting projects as social networks to end.
[+] [-] mrighele|3 years ago|reply
This is a double-edged sword, because it means that your project will receive a lot of trivial issues/requests. I've seen more than one complaint that the having to handle the amount of requests in an open source project made it more than a daily job than a enjoyable activity
Ideally you want to make it easy for people that care to contribute, but not too easy in order to avoid "spam".
[+] [-] mdaniel|3 years ago|reply
FWIW, GL supports a lot of social auth providers, including GitHub: https://gitlab.com/users/sign_in/ (you may have to open that in an incognito window to see the login choices, but there are 5 of them currently)
That's in contrast to https://github.com/login which is "GitHub or GFYS"
[+] [-] arubania2|3 years ago|reply
Does it matter where you link to in your resume?
I can't imagine someone open a URL only to realize it's not GitHub and close the page before checking out some repositories.
[+] [-] lamontcg|3 years ago|reply
Honestly, that sounds like a selling point. Having a road bump so that people who show up in issues are motivated should cut down on the zero effort drive by bug reports.
[+] [-] Curious_Furious|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sph|3 years ago|reply
Honestly, this is why I switched my previous company and my personal repos to Github. GitLab has always felt slow as molasses, with unintuitive UI.
[+] [-] dghlsakjg|3 years ago|reply
When I do hiring I will look at your any public code repo you put in your resume. I’m totally agnostic about where it is hosted.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] superkuh|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ectopod|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Phurist|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] woojoo666|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mytheory|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bragr|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ferdek|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmholla|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danpalmer|3 years ago|reply
I think GitLab's issue tracker has a lot of usability issues, but it fits the template of an issue tracker (mostly defined by Jira) much better. For those selecting a new platform for a large project or organisation, I can completely understand GitLab's issue tracker being a safer bet than GitHub.
[+] [-] Beltalowda|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeltz|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyingq|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shadonototra|3 years ago|reply
github is busy creating Instagram for "Coders"
[+] [-] voqv|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lizardactivist|3 years ago|reply
Github boasts "83 million developers", but I think the number of actual developers is probably closer to 0.83 million (which is still a very large amount).
But of course I am an insensitive jerk who likes to exclude people, because I think to be called a developer it takes more than registering an account, creating a repo with a couple of broken files and add noise to the signal.
[+] [-] vbezhenar|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Curious_Furious|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theli|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shultays|3 years ago|reply
Welcome to $current_year I guess
[+] [-] blueflow|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TonyTrapp|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] itvision|3 years ago|reply
Sourceforge has been more or less abandoned/forgotten for the past five years. Some projects continue to stick to it though due to inertia and laziness.
[+] [-] jjice|3 years ago|reply
Or I'm completely wrong.
[+] [-] gtirloni|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] openstep|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sylware|3 years ago|reply
wrong alternative.