Seems like by adopting Gitlab, you're adopting their view of how stuff should work. YMMV.
GitHub offers self-hosted CI runners, but it's infamously limited. Last I checked there's still no official GH runner release for arm64-darwin (for which community, including yours truly, provided reliable workarounds through Rosetta that still lands you in an arm64-darwin bash, and now IIUC actual native builds[1]), there's no way to select anything else than x64 in the UI for Windows and macOS, which sets some tags on the runners that you can't remove, and there's no way to say "Other" with a custom value. Comparatively, gitlab-runner is a crazy adaptable piece of code, that allows for quite unique setups[0], combined with the loose way one can automatically assign jobs to runners using tags GL pipelines trounce GHA workflows†.
[0]: https://docs.gitlab.com/runner/executors/
[1]: https://github.com/actions/runner/issues/805
† GHA covers 80% of cases (from basic to a bit more involved) somewhat nicely, but when it starts to fall short it's terrible.
> A large bonus for Arm was that GitLab is open source and the company wanted to use its own tools to support its open source ecosystem.
> minimize vendor lock-in
> Because Arm is an IP company, security is paramount
When GNU-ish philosophy meets business requirements. GitHub can be self-hosted (at a price!) but GitLab is FOSS, so it can be audited, and if necessary, forked. From code to data, it can be owned, end to end.
I'm still a strong gitlab supporter but tbh their development backlog is overflowing for the last 4 years at least. They have a TON of work to do and they seem to be focusing dev resources on what major clients want, instead of making the whole platform more robust. It's sad for us simple open source free tier users.
There is work to do, and product and engineering are putting more focus on fixing longstanding issues, and increase reliability. Specifically for GitLab Runner, 15.0 and later bring many fixes, next to supporting podman.
https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/issues/?sort=updated_...
Github seems to be primarily focused on becoming a social network. That might be why it’s so popular for open source and individuals, but when I’m actually working, the extensive feature set of Gitlab is much more useful.
Also Gitlab CI is a Maybach, Github CI is a PT Cruiser.
I think I understand why people say this. However, I hardly ever see any of that so it just doesn’t matter to me / isn’t a problem for me.
One thing is their org structure is weak. They don’t allow sub-orgs or any organization. So if you have a big organization, it’s just chaos and their solution is to set up profiles and complex notifications.
There’s no way to just set up groups and watch those while also being part of an overall org.
I have 500 people and 250 projects in my org. It’s all private so they expect people to use social features for team awareness. A new member has to get a list of repos worked on by their team (maybe permissions are granted based on a team) and then go star and watch them.
This is not a problem for a single coder or someone who’s on a few projects. But it’s not very good for an enterprise that already has an organization.
Instead of tidying this up, github seems to be getting worse with feeds and stuff.
I never hit the GitHub.com homepage so I never see any of this work. I always start directly on a repo, notifications, or search.
I'm looking at this move/marketing of theirs as a show of being in opposition to Bitbucket which (along with other Atlassian's products) is made for managers.
Do you have a source for this bold claim?
HN should be for facts, not Reddit FUD.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSAKEY
You can scoff at the resulting fears, but the variable existing is factual.
Backdoors do exist but they're usually disguised as bugs, not so obviously in-your-face like that.
really good.
Are you talking about the programmer who wrote the website? If so, OK, I guess.
The technology itself is the opposite of opinionated or ideological. It's just git.
I'm a paying customer because I really like the UI and the base git.sr.ht service. However, hosted Git today is much more than Git. And so my overall experience is similar to the parent, I find it opinionated and stubbornly ideological. I'm close to being fed up with the "my way or the highway approach" at every corner.
Some examples off the top of my head:
1. I'm fine with sending patches via email, not every contributor is. So give me the option to accept pull requests. Instead, you'll be directed to tutorials teaching how to send patches. Needlessly increases the friction for a large portion of my peers.
2. I want to love build.sr.ht too. But, there's no Docker support. Instead you end up in discussions like "what did society do before Docker?". Give me the option to build some of my repos using my Dockerfile. Again, an ideological choice creating friction.
3. I want to use pages.sr.ht with Cloudflare. "Connections from CloudFlare’s reverse proxy are dropped." Why? "Do not help one private company expand its control over all internet traffic." OK.
All these small restrictions and gotchas with the finger wagging tone amount up to a very oppressive experience for the user. At least, that's my experience.
On 3, I agree with you. There is a lot of this sort of thinking within the product.
I don't really see 1 as a huge barrier to entry. SourceHut does have a web UI however for generating a patchset.
IMHO, Microsoft is absolute trash and their reputation isn't great, but since buying Github there have been very good improvements still being made to Github (CI.. though slowly, UI, etc). Better than being bought by Salesforce......
I haven’t evaluated it in many years but it’s supposed to have all the same features as regular GitHub.
[0] https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-server@3.2/admin/overv...