At the same time, GitHub really is at the centre of opensource- how can they be losing money when they are literally the defacto code hosting site? And if they go under, who could replace them?
I was just voicing my opinion on their business. You're right that is very spuriously related and I apologise.
- Performance, we're working on improving this for GitLab.com but right now it's slower than we'd like. If you run your own instance it'll be fine as long as you meet the recommended specs, GitLab.com struggles because we have so many users by comparison.
- Following users/social network-y things, we haven't really focused on this and don't have a way to follow another user right now (you can watch projects though).
- Third party integrations, we don't have as many third parties integrating with the product as GitHub does, though that's kind of to-be-expected.
And while I'm here, some things we do better (IMO):
- CI, we have it integrated into the product and have Review Apps plus GitLab Pages (which is better than GitHub Pages in some ways, e.g. in that it allows any static site generator and allows building sites dynamically via CI).
- Responsive design, GitHub has a separate mobile site that's not fully-featured compared to the desktop site. I browse on mobile _a lot_ so this is big for me, maybe not for others.
- Community Edition, which has a significant majority of the features of Enterprise Edition, is open source, MIT-Licensed, and anybody can contribute to it.
There are others, but I don't want to shill too hard :P
EDIT: Also I want to mention that we value diversity, I strongly disagree with the grandparent comment about how inclusivity shouldn't be rewarded.
I think that GP's point was not that inclusivity is bad, but that only hiring one group of people (be it minorities or not) is not something that should be rewarded (because it's counteracting diversity, and also being a bad hiring manager).
Just want to note that it's awesome that GitLab has community activists. You're really eating GitHub's lunch at this point, and it's amusing that they haven't noticed.
Good. Please don't waste resources trying to be Facebook-but-for-devs.
> Also I want to mention that we value diversity, I disagree with the grandparent comment about how inclusivity shouldn't be rewarded.
Strongly agree with this.
- Performance
- Performance
- Performance
Because, to a first approximation, no-one is paying them for that hosting.
Im hoping it's a company run by women and minorities, just for your sake.
But I'm not a fan of actively bringing bias into hiring. You're just being racist if you hire someone on the basis of them being a skin colour.
I don't support racist organisations of any kind.
If there is a company that happens to be funded and started by minorities and women is successful then that's fine, of course that's fine, I support them fully, but when they're being vitriolic about people regarding race and gender I'm not pleased.
Why did we work so hard to become great at our jobs to just have someone else less qualified plopped in next to us because of their skin color and gender? How is that fair? Trust me there is a silent resentment happening here.
Why can't we break down the barriers without being specifically hateful to white men? There is this assumption that it's not racism if directed towards them? How is it helpful to anyone involved?
Especially in light of the numerous studies that show that people (men AND women) keep assuming on your technical skills solely based on genders.
I never said they (we) are less qualified, I was referring to the action of hiring a less qualified person based on the fact that they are a minority or a woman. When this happens, it angers EVERY more qualified person in the position. I'll break it down.
Candidate A is a white male with all qualifications. Candidate B is a black woman with far less, but is more "diverse".
When candidate B is hired, the others in the organization soon figure out they are less skilled or qualified. Then the white males in the marketplace have resentment towards them, BUT so does the black woman with great skills and qualifications who saw someone with less qualifications hired beside them, making the same wage as them.
Does that make sense?
How many of us have had to work with "that guy" who interviews really well, but sucks at his job and coast for 6 months before people finally realise how rubbish at his job he is and he finally gets the boot. In more extreme cases they even get promoted over you and become your manager in spite of their incompetence.
Let's be clear, that's exactly what you were implying.
>I don't support racist organisations of any kind.
This is an extremely huge stretch for you to make, just because they're trying not to favor white males.
>but when they're being vitriolic about people regarding race and gender I'm not pleased.
Like most of the anti-Github people in these comments are?
It's not appropriate to bring up in the way it was, but it's not a knee jerk to say that some of them absolutely despise white people.
[0] http://uk.businessinsider.com/diversity-guru-discusses-white...
I'm not expressing an opinion on the idea, just outlining the debate for you.
That is a super optimistic view of software engineering hiring. Hiring is a disaster and a crapshoot, and everyone knows it; don't pretend that processes with certain demographic qualities (any demographic qualities, honestly) are somehow rigorous. You hire based on a brief interview and some algorithmic trivia people forgot from college, or you give up on that and decide that hiring based on where someone went to school or who referred them to you is higher-quality.
1. does github in fact "only hire women and minorities" at the expense of superior, talented white men?
2. assuming #1 is true, what evidence is there that said hiring practices are at the root of their financial difficulties?
It's easy to throw out loaded statements. I don't think it's nuts to request clarification.
The snark you are inferring is completely imagined. Your original comment is also flamebaiting by adding a complete strawman that is also ideological. Please cease politicizing this discussion.