Normal only because the scale of the graph is totally skewed right now. Looking at actual values, it looks like they're currently at ~2400 projects imported per measuring increment, up from <100 per increment before the Microsoft rumours first popped up, and down from 24k in the big spike.
The fork happened years ago because Gogs was (not entirely sure of current status) managed by a single person who would disappear on the regular, leaving fixes and other things not merged for weeks. So it got forked by people who were contributing to Gogs, and I think that ended up pushing Gogs into more active development. Now the two projects are still very similar but diverged enough to have some important differences like the OAuth support in gitea and such.
oauth is a total no-brainer feature add. Years ago I abandoned Trac because I couldn't deal w/ the spam user accounts and oauth integration w/ github wasn't really a thing back then. gogs should really add this though already gitea seems like that's where this particular community has gone.
It's worth mentioning the reasoning behind the project: It's a fork of Gogs. It was created because the community didn't like that Gogs was structured to be owned under 1 person (who was often slow to accept PRs, disappeared occasionally for short periods of time...)
I was going to point out that GitHub pages are so great for hosting static content that that alone keeps me in GitHub. But looks like GitLab already implements their equivalent.
Too bad it looks like they don't handle enabling TLS/SSL for custom domains as conveniently as GitHub does (e.g. one click to enable and they will then get the cert through LetsEncrypt or something without me having to bother with getting it from a CA, renewals etc.) [1].
Already commented about this elsewhere, but if anyone from GitLab is reading, this thing would make any potential transition much more convenient for me.
For what it's worth, I started using Netlify (https://www.netlify.com/) for my static sites a while ago, and it's been great. Automatic LE support is definitely one of my favorite features.
There's also ChiselApp which is Free, and able to be Self-Hosted (Flint is the upstream repository -- ChiselApp is a styled Flint, without the rights to redistribute the theme).
Why are people jumping ship to lower quality services ? And I'm talking about unrecognizable brand names, because at least migrating to Gitlab or Bitbucket may be understandable in a way, but still an exageration in my opinion.
And what makes you think 1) company culture is no longer a thing and 2) that microsoft won't swing back towards being openly hostile or worse, 'secretly hostile' towards open source software when someone else is at the healm?
I hope time will prove me wrong, but this acquisition is literally the 'embrace' phase of E3. Next comes the 'extend'.
Microsoft has shown themselves to be very pro-open-source in the last 5+ years. Just look at things like VS Code. Microsoft is just the Nickelback of software, its cool to hate on them for no real reason (any more).
Why would they acquire github just to turn on it and run it into the ground? You can do that if your users are locked-in or maybe you have a competing service but neither are the case here; there are numerous alternatives and it's pretty easy to switch, as we are already seeing. If they have anything but good intentions this would be just a giant waste of time/money.
They did it with Skype. They don't have good but rather business minded intentions or how to make money from a product. This can change the product for the worse or at least for another audience (business users).
The mobile hardware division of Nokia had been heading this way for a long time - I have no idea why they went through with that. Is it fair to say all Microsoft's attempts at hardware (except XBOX) have failed?
The other example would be the Kin phone. A feature complete working phone that Microsoft decided needed to be rewritten from scratch to use the Windows Mobile / Phone stack
It took 18 months and nearly $1B to rewrite only to find the market had moved on. Canned and written off
I can imagine a situation where Microsoft thinks that GitHub would benefit from being re-implemented using Microsoft tech. Rewriting in APS.net, using Microsoft Login, integration with Office 365. The whole enchilada :)
It would take years, cost billions and, at best, deliver exactly the same experience as GitHub today
Worse case would be that GitHub stagnates during the rewrite as the alternatives spend their time and money developing new features
Do you believe that on Mr Ballmer's last day he put the company culture into a box along with some desk plants and framed photos and walked out of the building with it?
I'm not sure how useful this comment is in that terse form... I've heard many voicing opinions that now is a good opportunity to jump to the superior Gitlab for reasons like self hosting if not for future proofing.
Edit: OK, this was in response to your unedited comment
From people I spoke to everyone seems concerned with what might happen. It is possible nothing bad happens at all but people cannot trust MS after what happened to a lot of the companies they acquired in the past.
I was alive when Microsoft was evil and I don't want my stuff to stay in a Microsoft service. I moved my pulic repositories to GitLab today. It's slower and it doesn't looks as nice but it's ok.
I self host my private repositories, no need of a third party service for that.
By the way, Bitbucket looks a little better than GitLab but its usability is abysmal. I always have troubles finding the things I want in there.
I don't mind, as I don't mind that (another famous example) StackOverflow runs on Windows. They use what's best for them. I don't use MicroSoft directly but with all the stuff that they sold it's impossible to stay strictly clear from them. Examples: Windows powered ATMs and supermarket cash counters.
Companies aren't evil, they are just a group of people, and so it stands to reason when the leaders of that group have changed then "the company" has changed too.
Also what exactly is so bad about MS owning Github? The amount of conspiracy theory on HN is incredible.
It's surprising that nobody blames Github for selling, they play an equal part in all this. Not to mention that their entire business model is about an acquisition so they had to end up somewhere to stay alive.
An evil company is usually a group of evil people.
There's a small chance of incompetence and bad organization causing companies to behave inappropriately, but normally it's just a critical mass of various types of evil people: insensitive, criminal, fanatic, hypocritical, greedy...
I disagree. It's mostly because of apathy and incompetence. When you get to the size of Fortune 500 companies, most people in the organization are not world-class top tier talent and will behave as such. There will be malicious but are far fewer than what it looks like.
I wouldn't say that they are low quality, but what really puzzles me is the timing of the switch, linked to a market event, which has no policy or technical consequences.
I had no problems working with MS products since DOS 5.0/Win 3.1 and never had any technical or privacy issues while using them as the tools that allow me to live normal life and do my job efficiently. GH is convenient and perfectly matches my needs (I'm hosting there few personal open-source projects and private repositories), so what's the point in moving anywhere?
"A couple of years ago Microsoft was anti-open-source." The quote is from 2001 as is Ballmer's quote. Closing the article due to its lack of objectivity.
Fixing an imago set by a guy calling open-source and Linux 'a cancer' is really hard. The last few years of changes doesn't magically wipe away that bitter taste, and the last 10-20 years doesn't magically make you forget the past.
It's an interesting debate though. If the CEO and most of the major execs of a company have left, is it really worthwhile to factor statements made 17 years ago into your decision making process?
Don't get me wrong, many will avoid MS-anything to punish them for their past conduct, which is a fair personal decision. But if you're trying to evaluate what MS will do in the future, I'm not sure how relevant 2001 is.
In my mind it is less about the people who made the statements or were there when the statements were made and more about whether the company has the same business model now that it did at the time.
I basically agree with you, but just to play devil's advocate:
> Maybe the relevant factor isn't whether the same people are in place, but rather that the process that selected those people at all, selected both the "linux is cancer" people, as well as the current people. And that process is the same as it was before, optimizing for the same things, and therefore it may try to undermine open source again, once the prevailing cultural winds shift again, regardless of which warm body is currently in the hot seat.
It's a little more of a abstract argument, but I don't think it's insane to consider.
So the debate then becomes about whether the process really is the same or not.
It isn't only a shortsighted selection process, but also cultural imprinting: the replacements of gone managers tend to be selected to be similar to them and fit in the same place, and this includes sharing similar opinions.
Indeed it is. Same goes for other prominent figures, like Steve Jobs. People were/are convinced that the whole identity, all products and every choice was Jobs-bound and therefore without Jobs, what Apple does can't be just as good as it was when he was alive and running things.
So past CEOs can make a lasting impact, and in many ways it works out badly because the negative comments get the most attention.
Where Apple, according to some louder fans is not as good as it was under Jobs, for Microsoft under Nadella the inverse is true: according to the haters, just because it looks better now doesn't mean the (to them) bad years are gone.
Generalising, no matter what direction a transition takes (good to bad or bad to good), it's always the loud messages pointing out the bad past or bad future that gets the most attention and influences choices the most.
It's almost like trust between people: doing things right 99% of the time but doing one thing wrong once always makes that 99% of 'good' disappear and only the bad is taken as the 'true' value. In the extreme: lie once, and you are a liar. Even if you are 99 years old and have never lied before. That one time, once, will be what defines you as 'bad', and the rest does not outweigh it. Of course in reality that extreme example is not super likely, but nevertheless, it should carry the point I'm attempting to make ;-)
It's not the sum, aggregate or balance that seems to count, only how 'bad' your 'badness' is.
It would be vital to know what made MS change their stance against Open Source in general and Linux in particular; if it was "we can't beat them directly, so let's destroy them by faking an alliance, possibly gaining also control from the inside" (hint: Linux Foundation platinum membership) then we still have every reason to remain skeptic.
At least some of that rhetoric was directed at the GPL specifically. And in that sense, many people in the open source world feel similarly and avoid copyleft.
I've interacted online with some BSD zealots that were so invested in not using Linux they pretend not to know what systemd is and things like that, in order to signal to the rest of the irc channel how plugged in they are to the BSD community.
Edit: down voted for answering the question asked? Good grief.
There were more recent examples of foul behavior that was hostile towards FOSS. Like siding with Oracle on copyrightability of APIs[1]. Damage from this is still present today, until courts will declare APIs non copyrightable.
> This is not all about Microsoft. This is about the independence of what has become the de-facto home of open source. It shouldn't be owned by any company that has any agenda other than host that home.
That's it, the open-source community is there. Performance doesn't really matter when there's tons of amazing projects being hosted in one place. If features were important, Gitlab would be more popular than Github.
Ehh, I think the community would move to a better site if there were distinguishing features. From a source-viewing and code-review perspective, they’re all more or less the same: basic.
The only reason some of my clients (of my own company) and some of the clients of my employer (so.. someone else's company) choose GitHub over GitLab is track record. GitLab isn't old enough with a long/stable enough track record to be considered on par. Feature- and functionality-wise, GitLab always wins.
A small, but second reason some of my clients and workgroups choose GitHub is pure because of the brand name, but I suppose that could be thrown in together with track record or age.
I like GitHub's UI better. I'm not even sure what is the latest iteration of GitLab UI. They change it in every release and it's a mess. I still can't find stuff.
Also, GitLab is slow. I'm sure that gitlab.com service would not way handle a fraction of GitHub's traffic without a complete rewrite or something like that.
I like GitLab as we have a CE installation that we depend on and I want it to be successful (which it already is I think). However personally it feels worse than GitHub on casual use.
GitLab is definitely slower. But the bigger problem for me is simply that the UI is unfamiliar. I'm honestly not sure if it's worse, it's just that I'm very used to Github by now. It's a bit "rock and hard place" for GitLab as I imagine they don't want to just carbon copy Github.
My company also uses gitlab, while it is visibly slower that's not a huge problem. For a smaller teams it's just a matter of throwing a decent server with a lot of RAM and the problem disappears. At least for my team it seems to be good in However I'm not sure how it would perform with significantly larger loads.
The network effect. I haven't seen it mentioned too much, so it worth thinking about it. The majority of the users won't leave and it's still one of the best places to collaborate with developers.
There's tons of search traffic going to GitHub issues.
GitLab's UI is in every way a travesty compared to GitHub's.
GitLab feels like using GitHub's UI from about 3 years ago. Here's a list of things missing, just to name a few:
> consolidated reviews
> multiple assigned people
> reasonable diffs when merging complicated changes, ability to review code since it was last reviewed
> easy to create merge requests, and plenty of context sensitive stuff
> can generate comparisons of code online without creating a merge request
> The navigation is spread across:
> The very top
> The left hand side
> An inline breadcrumbs below that
> A bar in the middle of the screen
> A bar below that
> History button duplicates Commits button.
> About 30% of the top of the UI is just useless filler - so the content on the page (the tree and the README - which is probably want I want when I visit a project) also consists of a small box in the bottom of the scren.
> Much more consistent navigation - series of contextual bars which move down - so each page is more consistent
> Much more of the screen is available for the tree / README
We appreciate open feedback, thank you for these UI details.
We are very aware of the lack of polishing of our current project home page and missed opportunities. There is a specific issue on that we are working on for a July release right now, see https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/44704. This is a first step of the larger effort we are tackling to improve the overall experience via https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/62.
Please feel free to check these out and comment in the issue.
Regarding our navigation, we feel confident that the experience has been greatly improved with the new 10.0 UI. See https://about.gitlab.com/2017/09/13/unveiling-gitlabs-new-na... for some context. I’d like to encourage you to get involved and let us know what you think! You can always create an issue to contribute improving the GitLab experience.
I've never used Github for personal, closed-source projects, but if you have and want to switch to something that provides absolutely no features except git hosting, here are 3 I've used:
There's also (Fedora) Pagure, available hosted at https://pagure.io/, and it can be self-hosted. Though it's not quite as painless as gitea/gogs. Example of a more active project: https://pagure.io/mlocate
Didn't know about that one, thanks! This further increases my appreciation of Fedora. Between this and the COPR hosting, you can really do some serious development for Fedora without paying a dime for hosting or distribution. That's awesome.
For those looking into this option, it is important to note that Bitbucket's self-hosted option is a separate codebase that started with no link to the cloud product.
Previously it was called Stash but was later rebranded to Bitbucket to reduce confusion.
This is equivalent to a knee-jerk reaction clearly following the MS purchase of Github. The Microsoft of today is vastly different. Example: I'm using VSCode on my Mac right now and it clearly is a better alternative to something like Atom and its open source. My best friend is the head of the bash initiative at MS as well and I pretty much hated MS before. Now its pretty cool so doesn't seem like a rational view anymore to be MS negative.
Gitlab seems to be picking up the pace and gaining mindshare among developers.
Freelancers I'm curious, would you switch and lose your repos' stars, PRs, fork counts? Those are actually a good marketing tool for potential customers since they see you are legitimate.
Thumbs up to Phabricator, a software imo very underrated. Absolutely recommend if you are not very fond of Gitlab (furthermore, Phabricator's performance has been really good in my experience)
I’m only half joking when I say VSTS is a pretty strong contender in the code+issues space, especially if you need more complex features for CI/CD.
For obvious reasons it’s not a good option if you are switching from Github out of fear of Microsoft (which is presumably the reason it’s not listed in the article).
> A couple of years ago Microsoft was anti-open-source.
Both quotes are from 2001.
So rather than a "couple of years ago", it was seventeen years ago.
Toddlers walking the earth at that time, are now college graduates and developers working at Microsoft. Let's not think its the exact same group of people who said both statements, even if the company name is unchanged.
> Toddlers walking the earth at that time, are now college graduates and developers working at Microsoft
This is extremely true and people need to understand how important this point exactly is. I think we all agree that Microsoft will continue to exist even 50-60 years from now with the same exact name. They will have generations of programmers passed through their corporate structure with varying goals and opinions.
192 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 219 ms ] threadI'm would have expected more competition.
Not sure what to do with all my Github tshirts now :)
Too bad it looks like they don't handle enabling TLS/SSL for custom domains as conveniently as GitHub does (e.g. one click to enable and they will then get the cert through LetsEncrypt or something without me having to bother with getting it from a CA, renewals etc.) [1].
Already commented about this elsewhere, but if anyone from GitLab is reading, this thing would make any potential transition much more convenient for me.
[1] https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/pages/getting_starte...
I hope time will prove me wrong, but this acquisition is literally the 'embrace' phase of E3. Next comes the 'extend'.
It doesn't need malice but Microsoft have a talent for this kind of thing
It took 18 months and nearly $1B to rewrite only to find the market had moved on. Canned and written off
I can imagine a situation where Microsoft thinks that GitHub would benefit from being re-implemented using Microsoft tech. Rewriting in APS.net, using Microsoft Login, integration with Office 365. The whole enchilada :)
It would take years, cost billions and, at best, deliver exactly the same experience as GitHub today
Worse case would be that GitHub stagnates during the rewrite as the alternatives spend their time and money developing new features
I was contacted by a recruiting firm for an interview in Microsoft, probably in the 90s or maybe in the early 2000s. I answered no thanks.
Edit: OK, this was in response to your unedited comment
I self host my private repositories, no need of a third party service for that.
By the way, Bitbucket looks a little better than GitLab but its usability is abysmal. I always have troubles finding the things I want in there.
I do not know whether this migration has finished.
More links:
- http://fortune.com/2016/11/14/gitlab-cloud-storage/
- https://venturebeat.com/2018/04/06/why-and-how-gitlab-abando...
Also what exactly is so bad about MS owning Github? The amount of conspiracy theory on HN is incredible.
No idea. Especially compared to the other realistic options: Facebook or Google.
> The amount of conspiracy theory on HN is incredible.
If you think this is bad, I advice you to not investigate the mood down in /r/linux or other similar reddit-subs.
I had no problems working with MS products since DOS 5.0/Win 3.1 and never had any technical or privacy issues while using them as the tools that allow me to live normal life and do my job efficiently. GH is convenient and perfectly matches my needs (I'm hosting there few personal open-source projects and private repositories), so what's the point in moving anywhere?
because at best (or actually worst?) MS will slowly boil you like that frog.
Don't get me wrong, many will avoid MS-anything to punish them for their past conduct, which is a fair personal decision. But if you're trying to evaluate what MS will do in the future, I'm not sure how relevant 2001 is.
> Maybe the relevant factor isn't whether the same people are in place, but rather that the process that selected those people at all, selected both the "linux is cancer" people, as well as the current people. And that process is the same as it was before, optimizing for the same things, and therefore it may try to undermine open source again, once the prevailing cultural winds shift again, regardless of which warm body is currently in the hot seat.
It's a little more of a abstract argument, but I don't think it's insane to consider.
So the debate then becomes about whether the process really is the same or not.
So past CEOs can make a lasting impact, and in many ways it works out badly because the negative comments get the most attention.
Where Apple, according to some louder fans is not as good as it was under Jobs, for Microsoft under Nadella the inverse is true: according to the haters, just because it looks better now doesn't mean the (to them) bad years are gone.
Generalising, no matter what direction a transition takes (good to bad or bad to good), it's always the loud messages pointing out the bad past or bad future that gets the most attention and influences choices the most.
It's almost like trust between people: doing things right 99% of the time but doing one thing wrong once always makes that 99% of 'good' disappear and only the bad is taken as the 'true' value. In the extreme: lie once, and you are a liar. Even if you are 99 years old and have never lied before. That one time, once, will be what defines you as 'bad', and the rest does not outweigh it. Of course in reality that extreme example is not super likely, but nevertheless, it should carry the point I'm attempting to make ;-)
It's not the sum, aggregate or balance that seems to count, only how 'bad' your 'badness' is.
Edit: down voted for answering the question asked? Good grief.
1. https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/MSFT-...
> So no, we won't relax:
https://twitter.com/UpEnd_org/status/1003467392712880128
Then quotes stuff from 18 years ago.... ok
I’m not affiliated with GitLab, however a little biased because we’re using GitLab instead of GitHub at our company.
Feature-wise, It seems to me that GitLab is running circles around GitHub. Curious about other opinions.
A small, but second reason some of my clients and workgroups choose GitHub is pure because of the brand name, but I suppose that could be thrown in together with track record or age.
Also, GitLab is slow. I'm sure that gitlab.com service would not way handle a fraction of GitHub's traffic without a complete rewrite or something like that.
I like GitLab as we have a CE installation that we depend on and I want it to be successful (which it already is I think). However personally it feels worse than GitHub on casual use.
There's tons of search traffic going to GitHub issues.
GitLab feels like using GitHub's UI from about 3 years ago. Here's a list of things missing, just to name a few:
There's so many small UI/UX pain pointsTake https://gitlab.com/coldnight/ci-test (which was the trending repo when I visited....):
Compare https://github.com/fivethirtyeight/data (which is the top trending repo on Explore on GitHub!):We appreciate open feedback, thank you for these UI details. We are very aware of the lack of polishing of our current project home page and missed opportunities. There is a specific issue on that we are working on for a July release right now, see https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/44704. This is a first step of the larger effort we are tackling to improve the overall experience via https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/62. Please feel free to check these out and comment in the issue.
Regarding our navigation, we feel confident that the experience has been greatly improved with the new 10.0 UI. See https://about.gitlab.com/2017/09/13/unveiling-gitlabs-new-na... for some context. I’d like to encourage you to get involved and let us know what you think! You can always create an issue to contribute improving the GitLab experience.
Andreas Product Manager
- Keybase git: https://keybase.io/blog/encrypted-git-for-everyone (my preferred solution these days).
- AWS CodeCommit: https://aws.amazon.com/codecommit/ ("encrypted", but I don't know if AWS employees can access it).
- Dropbox git remote: https://github.com/anishathalye/git-remote-dropbox (it's slow and unencrypted, but uses Dropbox).
https://kallithea-scm.org/
I guess it's a wiki so I could add it myself, but apparently you need a github account to edit this wiki?
https://www.assembla.com/
https://help.launchpad.net/Code/Git
* source microsoft
https://bitbucket.org/product/pricing?tab=self-hosted
https://hub.docker.com/r/atlassian/bitbucket-server/
Previously it was called Stash but was later rebranded to Bitbucket to reduce confusion.
Do you know if their enterprise edition is based on cloud or server?
Here's the FAQ from when the change was made:
https://confluence.atlassian.com/bitbucketserver/bitbucket-r...
https://stackshare.io/stackups/gitlab-vs-github-vs-bitbucket
Gitlab seems to be picking up the pace and gaining mindshare among developers.
Freelancers I'm curious, would you switch and lose your repos' stars, PRs, fork counts? Those are actually a good marketing tool for potential customers since they see you are legitimate.
https://blog.meinside.pe.kr/Gogs-on-Raspberry-Pi/
https://hackernoon.com/create-your-own-git-server-using-rasp...
https://pimylifeup.com/raspberry-pi-git-server/
For obvious reasons it’s not a good option if you are switching from Github out of fear of Microsoft (which is presumably the reason it’s not listed in the article).
Both quotes are from 2001.
So rather than a "couple of years ago", it was seventeen years ago.
Toddlers walking the earth at that time, are now college graduates and developers working at Microsoft. Let's not think its the exact same group of people who said both statements, even if the company name is unchanged.
This is extremely true and people need to understand how important this point exactly is. I think we all agree that Microsoft will continue to exist even 50-60 years from now with the same exact name. They will have generations of programmers passed through their corporate structure with varying goals and opinions.
Tu quoque stops making sense at such timescales.