Wow, what a read. I’m sure GitLab has improved and grown a lot since then, but that’s like a comprehensive list of what not to do from an IT perspective. Not ever checking to see if your backups are working, wiping production DBs without a second thought, this post has it all.

When microsoft took over the rate of new features increased dramatically.

Adding new features fast often entails tradeoffs in other areas - such as reliability. Which seems to be what happened in github.

Yes. Github used to be hosted on AWS. Now,they have migrated (at least partially) to Azure.

I'm not privy to their management decisions, but I have used windows and azure, and I use office 365 every day, and this seems about right for Microsoft Quality.

How come we first get the almighty git software for free, then the next thing happening is people flocking to "hosted" services that provide very little on top of git for the vast majority of projects (apart from the social networking effect of course, but that also means your project has tens or hundreds of issues and build status "failing"). Then people bitch about gh on HN in a consumerish "coke-vs-pepsi" manner. Have F/OSS devs no self-respect? If you're into F/OSS, why do you lead your peers into a github silo where clicks to the content you create with lots and lots of effort in your spare time only helps big data, and which is even blocking indie search engines?

"small" fuckups like this one have outsized impacts due to the amount of projects that use github. And the amount of people who just refuse to even consider gitlab is staggering.

> But, UI of Gitlab is very bloated. I feel that UI of Github is less bloater than Gitlab.

Bloated how? There is a lot of functionality in gitlab, and maybe there is a fair argument that the product itself is bloated, but the UI seems pretty appropriate for the functionality. Maybe I'm just used to it though.