9 ms·

I think you are confused. The best thing to happen to OSS is GitHub, not GitLab. GitLab is just a fast follower and likely wouldn't even exist without the form

I think you are confused. The best thing to happen to OSS is GitHub, not GitLab. GitLab is just a fast follower and likely wouldn't even exist without the former. I for one am happy to throw money GitHub's way for their role in so dramatically changing how we code.

drvdevd 10y ago
I pay for GitHub and can't deny their positive role in OSS, but I also use GitLab and will happily continue (and love that they have an OSS edition). I don't think it's a binary choice. Personally I will often adopt multiple pieces of software with redundant features because nuance often dictates the right tool for the job, and I enjoy being prepared for that.
- nicpottier 10y ago
  Absolutely, but the parent was saying GitLab changed OSS, and though that may be true to some extent, it is a pittance compared to the imapct GitHub has made.
  - manquer 10y ago
    git itself is the real force behind the OSS impact. Github model while successful was merely replacing sourceforge and google code. People always had ways to host and share open source projects. Github enables centralization of code which is not really inline with philosophy of git being fully distributed . Gitlab with its OSS model and the ability to host your own git service makes is bit closer to that vision than Github is.
Thaxll 10y ago
You code differently using Git vs SVN? That's an interesting concept. It doesn't change the way you code it just changes the way we share code.
- gowld 10y ago
  It doesn't change how I code. It changes how we code.
- jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
  Git makes multi-tasking on multiple branches far easier than SVN. In the SVN days I always had multiple checkouts and a pile of scripts for changing/updating to branches for handling a few regular tasks in that context. Once git won I was able to delete them and have a far simpler workflow.
- nstj 10y ago
  Git absolutely changes the way I code. Cheap feature branching and easy rapid collaboration are huge in how they influence my coding practice and output. I wouldn't enjoy coding anywhere near as much if it weren't for Git.
- VintageCool 10y ago
  A few months ago I was developing for a breaking change and realized that I wasn't committing anything. That's very much an SVN mindset where merging is so painful that you culturally just avoid it altogether. Git's emphasis on being distributed and branching and merging constantly meant that, once I pulled my head out of my ass and started committing locally, I was able to enjoy the benefits of source control while developing my breaking changes without affecting anyone. And later, when I merged my branch into the master, it turned out to be completely painless.
flukus 10y ago
Github was just a follower with a new SCM. The original would be source forge.
- nicpottier 10y ago
  SourceForge pretty much failed where GitHub strived though. For all practical purposes they were just a hosted CVS/SVN and nothing more. GitHub really nailed the idea of community and that made all the difference. Git is incidental, though lightweight branching was probably an important contributor to their approach.
  - flukus 10y ago
    I know the execution was a lot better with github, but what did it really add that source forge, google code, etc didn't do? They all had bug trackers, mailing lists, etc.
    - will_hughes 10y ago
      The killer feature is stupid easy forking and sending pull requests with the one interface. Found some tiny project that does almost everything you want, but has a tiny feature you can implement easy? No worries, fork, add it. Even if it's never pushed upstream, it's easy for someone to find and perhaps use themselves. I do this with things like zabbix templates/scripts and docker containers that are 99% what I want. Previously there was no easy way to do this - I'd have to set up an entirely new sourceforge/google code/etc account, which is a lot more effort.
      - flukus 10y ago
        > The killer feature is stupid easy forking and sending pull requests with the one interface. That's the part that wasn't really possible before git though. But you could always do an anonymous checkout and make your changes there,you could even do a pull request (via a patch). There was no need to signup for that, even though most of us had a source forge account (I still do) anyway.
dkural 10y ago
Github itself is not open source. The irony.
- grzm 10y ago
  There are plenty of useful closed source services and tools that can be used to support open source projects, or just software development in general. Indeed, they facilitate open source projects with an easy to use service. Is there anything they're doing that prevents or blocks open source development? They do have open source projects that they've made available.
  - dkural 10y ago
    My pizza joint does not prevent or block open source development either. Apple has open source projects that they've made available. Many people use Visual Studio and Azure for open source projects, or software development in general. I find it very easy to use. I hope Github makes a lot of money from enabling open source. Who knows, maybe Microsoft will buy it. More seriously: Github is a business focused on turning open source community ethos into hard $$$. There is nothing wrong with that, and their model depends on people buying into the carefully constructed marketing of Github -hearts- open source. It's inconvenient for Github for people to point out that it is a closed source for-profit business with shareholders to please.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Many companies take advantage of open source software. Some support open source through support contracts. Some which develop software release some of it, and employ devs who also contribute to projects. I'm sure there are many other ways companies use and support OSS directly and indirectly; some, don't support OSS at all. SaaS companies are in a position where it can make it difficult for them to release their core software because it severely undercuts their viability if it's easy for people to set up their own installations. What follows is naïve speculation as to counter arguments: One could argue that they could differentiate themselves on better quality of service and support. It's possible, of course, but there may be enough people willing to put up with lesser quality that it may not be feasible for them to survive. One could counter that taking advantage of community software contributions can lower their own internal development costs. Maybe, but there are very real costs when managing an open source project, including not being able to move as fast as they may want to. For example, if GitHub wanted to make a change for expediency' sake that wouldn't be appropriate for the community code, they're saddled with maintaining their own fork, which adds considerable overhead. Of course GitHub loves open source. Their business is to provide a service that benefits open source (and closed source, for that matter) projects by providing infrastructure to manage their code. Some of their current and former employees are well-known in the open source community. I refuse to see anything nefarious or untoward (or even the slightest bit bad) about this until I see them doing something that impedes or actively works against open source. I see nothing "inconvenient" for GitHub about this. Some people are far too quick to go out of their way to look for hypocrisy. (And as for "turning open source community ethos into hard $$$": my goodness. Yes, they make money. I hope plenty to continue to support the business, improve the service, and pay their employees well. How many community projects pay nothing for hosting on GitHub? How many devs pay to host their own projects, or fork others? The only reason I've considered paying was to host private repos: not open source. It'd be interesting to see their revenue numbers, but I suspect most of their revenue is for enterprise installs for software that isn't open source. Any corrections as to this most welcome.) And there are alternatives for those who want open source. GitLab appears to be a great one.
iatanasov 10y ago
I think you might be confused. One of the nice things to happen to OSS was the availability of kernel ( Linux kernel that is ) and git ( ... ) and both set very open models which allowed the OSS to trive. Github allowed for using git without knowing it .
- JohannesH 10y ago
  I think you might be confused. One of the nice things to happen to OSS was the availability of transistors and electricity. Both made it possible to make millions of logic calculations per second without knowing it. :)
  - mightbeconfused 10y ago
    I think you might be confused. One of the nice things to happen to OSS was the availability of human beings to actually develop the concept of OSS and any underlying technology.
    - def_confused 10y ago
      I think I might be confused.
    - imiric 10y ago
      Please leave these threads on Reddit.

drvdevd 10y ago

I pay for GitHub and can't deny their positive role in OSS, but I also use GitLab and will happily continue (and love that they have an OSS edition). I don't think it's a binary choice. Personally I will often adopt multiple pieces of software with redundant features because nuance often dictates the right tool for the job, and I enjoy being prepared for that.

nicpottier 10y ago
Absolutely, but the parent was saying GitLab changed OSS, and though that may be true to some extent, it is a pittance compared to the imapct GitHub has made.
- manquer 10y ago
  git itself is the real force behind the OSS impact. Github model while successful was merely replacing sourceforge and google code. People always had ways to host and share open source projects. Github enables centralization of code which is not really inline with philosophy of git being fully distributed . Gitlab with its OSS model and the ability to host your own git service makes is bit closer to that vision than Github is.

Thaxll 10y ago

You code differently using Git vs SVN? That's an interesting concept. It doesn't change the way you code it just changes the way we share code.

gowld 10y ago
It doesn't change how I code. It changes how we code.
jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
Git makes multi-tasking on multiple branches far easier than SVN. In the SVN days I always had multiple checkouts and a pile of scripts for changing/updating to branches for handling a few regular tasks in that context. Once git won I was able to delete them and have a far simpler workflow.
nstj 10y ago
Git absolutely changes the way I code. Cheap feature branching and easy rapid collaboration are huge in how they influence my coding practice and output. I wouldn't enjoy coding anywhere near as much if it weren't for Git.
VintageCool 10y ago
A few months ago I was developing for a breaking change and realized that I wasn't committing anything. That's very much an SVN mindset where merging is so painful that you culturally just avoid it altogether. Git's emphasis on being distributed and branching and merging constantly meant that, once I pulled my head out of my ass and started committing locally, I was able to enjoy the benefits of source control while developing my breaking changes without affecting anyone. And later, when I merged my branch into the master, it turned out to be completely painless.

flukus 10y ago

Github was just a follower with a new SCM. The original would be source forge.

nicpottier 10y ago
SourceForge pretty much failed where GitHub strived though. For all practical purposes they were just a hosted CVS/SVN and nothing more. GitHub really nailed the idea of community and that made all the difference. Git is incidental, though lightweight branching was probably an important contributor to their approach.
- flukus 10y ago
  I know the execution was a lot better with github, but what did it really add that source forge, google code, etc didn't do? They all had bug trackers, mailing lists, etc.
  - will_hughes 10y ago
    The killer feature is stupid easy forking and sending pull requests with the one interface. Found some tiny project that does almost everything you want, but has a tiny feature you can implement easy? No worries, fork, add it. Even if it's never pushed upstream, it's easy for someone to find and perhaps use themselves. I do this with things like zabbix templates/scripts and docker containers that are 99% what I want. Previously there was no easy way to do this - I'd have to set up an entirely new sourceforge/google code/etc account, which is a lot more effort.
    - flukus 10y ago
      > The killer feature is stupid easy forking and sending pull requests with the one interface. That's the part that wasn't really possible before git though. But you could always do an anonymous checkout and make your changes there,you could even do a pull request (via a patch). There was no need to signup for that, even though most of us had a source forge account (I still do) anyway.

dkural 10y ago

Github itself is not open source. The irony.

grzm 10y ago
There are plenty of useful closed source services and tools that can be used to support open source projects, or just software development in general. Indeed, they facilitate open source projects with an easy to use service. Is there anything they're doing that prevents or blocks open source development? They do have open source projects that they've made available.
- dkural 10y ago
  My pizza joint does not prevent or block open source development either. Apple has open source projects that they've made available. Many people use Visual Studio and Azure for open source projects, or software development in general. I find it very easy to use. I hope Github makes a lot of money from enabling open source. Who knows, maybe Microsoft will buy it. More seriously: Github is a business focused on turning open source community ethos into hard $$$. There is nothing wrong with that, and their model depends on people buying into the carefully constructed marketing of Github -hearts- open source. It's inconvenient for Github for people to point out that it is a closed source for-profit business with shareholders to please.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Many companies take advantage of open source software. Some support open source through support contracts. Some which develop software release some of it, and employ devs who also contribute to projects. I'm sure there are many other ways companies use and support OSS directly and indirectly; some, don't support OSS at all. SaaS companies are in a position where it can make it difficult for them to release their core software because it severely undercuts their viability if it's easy for people to set up their own installations. What follows is naïve speculation as to counter arguments: One could argue that they could differentiate themselves on better quality of service and support. It's possible, of course, but there may be enough people willing to put up with lesser quality that it may not be feasible for them to survive. One could counter that taking advantage of community software contributions can lower their own internal development costs. Maybe, but there are very real costs when managing an open source project, including not being able to move as fast as they may want to. For example, if GitHub wanted to make a change for expediency' sake that wouldn't be appropriate for the community code, they're saddled with maintaining their own fork, which adds considerable overhead. Of course GitHub loves open source. Their business is to provide a service that benefits open source (and closed source, for that matter) projects by providing infrastructure to manage their code. Some of their current and former employees are well-known in the open source community. I refuse to see anything nefarious or untoward (or even the slightest bit bad) about this until I see them doing something that impedes or actively works against open source. I see nothing "inconvenient" for GitHub about this. Some people are far too quick to go out of their way to look for hypocrisy. (And as for "turning open source community ethos into hard $$$": my goodness. Yes, they make money. I hope plenty to continue to support the business, improve the service, and pay their employees well. How many community projects pay nothing for hosting on GitHub? How many devs pay to host their own projects, or fork others? The only reason I've considered paying was to host private repos: not open source. It'd be interesting to see their revenue numbers, but I suspect most of their revenue is for enterprise installs for software that isn't open source. Any corrections as to this most welcome.) And there are alternatives for those who want open source. GitLab appears to be a great one.

iatanasov 10y ago

I think you might be confused. One of the nice things to happen to OSS was the availability of kernel ( Linux kernel that is ) and git ( ... ) and both set very open models which allowed the OSS to trive. Github allowed for using git without knowing it .

JohannesH 10y ago
I think you might be confused. One of the nice things to happen to OSS was the availability of transistors and electricity. Both made it possible to make millions of logic calculations per second without knowing it. :)
- mightbeconfused 10y ago
  I think you might be confused. One of the nice things to happen to OSS was the availability of human beings to actually develop the concept of OSS and any underlying technology.
  - def_confused 10y ago
    I think I might be confused.
  - imiric 10y ago
    Please leave these threads on Reddit.