5 ms·

Even if every last byte of Gitlab and the bits behind it aren't OSS, it is lightyears ahead of GitHub in terms of source availability. And while I suspect the g

by dpedu 8y ago

Even if every last byte of Gitlab and the bits behind it aren't OSS, it is lightyears ahead of GitHub in terms of source availability. And while I suspect the gap will only grow, I'd love for Microsoft to make me wrong.

draw_down 8y ago
Exactly, which is what makes the "Microsoft LOVES open source!!!!" angle of this acquisition so strange. If they love open-source so much why did they acquire the closed-source service?
- bdcravens 8y ago
  Because most of the open source world is more than happy to use that closed-source service.
  - TAForObvReasons 8y ago
    Including Linux, which originally used the proprietary BitKeeper VCS system before Torvalds wrote git.
    - tazjin 8y ago
      The Github repository for the kernel is a mirror of the actual kernel.org repository. The kernel does not use a Github-style workflow, either.
      - cma 8y ago
        He's not talking about them using Github as his example, he's talking about them using Bitkeeper in the past.
    - dpedu 8y ago
      I don't think we can compare the state of OSS then to now.
    - the_af 8y ago
      It was a huge controversy back in the day, with prominent kernel devs being very vocally against BitKeeper. From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitKeeper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitKeeper): "The decision made in 2002 to use BitKeeper for Linux kernel development was a controversial one. Some, including GNU Project founder Richard Stallman, expressed concern about proprietary tools being used on a flagship free project. While project leader Linus Torvalds and other core developers adopted BitKeeper, several key developers (including Linux veteran Alan Cox) refused to do so, citing the BitMover license, and voicing concern that the project was ceding some control to a proprietary developer." Not that it matters to anyone, but I do remember I found it shocking news :)
    - wolfgke 8y ago
      > Including Linux, which originally used the proprietary BitKeeper VCS system before Torvalds wrote git. BitKeeper is by that time open source under Apache 2.0 License: http://www.bitkeeper.org/ http://www.bitkeeper.org/ EDIT: Why the downvote?
      - ajsalminen 8y ago
        Probably because BitKeeper definitely was proprietary back when the Linux kernel was using it even if it got open sourced later... Your comment seemed to be suggesting otherwise.
        wolfgke 8y ago
        > Probably because BitKeeper definitely was proprietary back when the Linux kernel was using it even if it got open sourced later... Your comment seemed to be suggesting otherwise. I specially looked in the dictionary what the translation of "mittlerweile" [de] means in English ("by that time"). Additionally I did not write "BitKeeper was by that time open source under Apache 2.0 License", but "BitKeeper is by that time open source under Apache 2.0 License", which to my understanding of English grammar means that I am writing about something that currently holds. Additionally the German word "mittlerweile" (which by my dictionary means "by that time", as I already remarked) has exactly the meaning that it was different in the past - and my language feeling says this also holds if "by that time" is used in a present tense sentence. Even if not: if I were to say that it was already open source in the past (when Linus Torvald decided to create Git), I would have used the simple past tense. Using a present tense sentence for such a formulation does not make sense with respect to my understanding of the English grammar.
        rlkf 8y ago
        People probably mistook "by that time" as "at that time" instead of "since", which was what you meant. Also, use "has been" instead of "is", as the open-sourcing happened sometime in the past (although it is in the state of open-source now).
        mmt 8y ago
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Because it's the more popular one
- da_chicken 8y ago
  Because they bought the service that they chose to use, and in choosing the criteria of what to buy, they chose "best overall" over "best 100% open source." Microsoft is one of the the largest contributors on GitHub.
mwj 8y ago
Give me service availability over "source availability" any day. The gitlab paas product has shocking performance and uptime.
- pritambaral 8y ago
  Why not have both and host it yourself?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - geostyx 8y ago
    Maintaining a GitLab server takes time.
    - theyinwhy 8y ago
      This is just utterly wrong. yum upgrade Done. No problems for years now. Not a single one.
      - naikrovek 8y ago
        Are you using it? I've yet to come across anyone hosting their own gitlab instance that has not had trouble of some sort.
        lttlrck 8y ago
        I am using it on Digital Ocean. I have had no issues whatsoever. Not only that, it’s a 1-click application too so I didn’t even have any setup issues. That’s not to say I won’t have trouble of some sort one day - but what software is 100% trouble free? Edit: typos
        Sir_Substance 8y ago
        Really? I've been using and selfhosting it for years without issue.

by dpedu 8y ago

draw_down 8y ago

Exactly, which is what makes the "Microsoft LOVES open source!!!!" angle of this acquisition so strange. If they love open-source so much why did they acquire the closed-source service?

bdcravens 8y ago
Because most of the open source world is more than happy to use that closed-source service.
- TAForObvReasons 8y ago
  Including Linux, which originally used the proprietary BitKeeper VCS system before Torvalds wrote git.
  - tazjin 8y ago
    The Github repository for the kernel is a mirror of the actual kernel.org repository. The kernel does not use a Github-style workflow, either.
    - cma 8y ago
      He's not talking about them using Github as his example, he's talking about them using Bitkeeper in the past.
  - dpedu 8y ago
    I don't think we can compare the state of OSS then to now.
  - the_af 8y ago
    It was a huge controversy back in the day, with prominent kernel devs being very vocally against BitKeeper. From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitKeeper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitKeeper): "The decision made in 2002 to use BitKeeper for Linux kernel development was a controversial one. Some, including GNU Project founder Richard Stallman, expressed concern about proprietary tools being used on a flagship free project. While project leader Linus Torvalds and other core developers adopted BitKeeper, several key developers (including Linux veteran Alan Cox) refused to do so, citing the BitMover license, and voicing concern that the project was ceding some control to a proprietary developer." Not that it matters to anyone, but I do remember I found it shocking news :)
  - wolfgke 8y ago
    > Including Linux, which originally used the proprietary BitKeeper VCS system before Torvalds wrote git. BitKeeper is by that time open source under Apache 2.0 License: http://www.bitkeeper.org/ http://www.bitkeeper.org/ EDIT: Why the downvote?
    - ajsalminen 8y ago
      Probably because BitKeeper definitely was proprietary back when the Linux kernel was using it even if it got open sourced later... Your comment seemed to be suggesting otherwise.
      - wolfgke 8y ago
        > Probably because BitKeeper definitely was proprietary back when the Linux kernel was using it even if it got open sourced later... Your comment seemed to be suggesting otherwise. I specially looked in the dictionary what the translation of "mittlerweile" [de] means in English ("by that time"). Additionally I did not write "BitKeeper was by that time open source under Apache 2.0 License", but "BitKeeper is by that time open source under Apache 2.0 License", which to my understanding of English grammar means that I am writing about something that currently holds. Additionally the German word "mittlerweile" (which by my dictionary means "by that time", as I already remarked) has exactly the meaning that it was different in the past - and my language feeling says this also holds if "by that time" is used in a present tense sentence. Even if not: if I were to say that it was already open source in the past (when Linus Torvald decided to create Git), I would have used the simple past tense. Using a present tense sentence for such a formulation does not make sense with respect to my understanding of the English grammar.
        rlkf 8y ago
        People probably mistook "by that time" as "at that time" instead of "since", which was what you meant. Also, use "has been" instead of "is", as the open-sourcing happened sometime in the past (although it is in the state of open-source now).
        mmt 8y ago
s73v3r_ 8y ago
Because it's the more popular one
da_chicken 8y ago
Because they bought the service that they chose to use, and in choosing the criteria of what to buy, they chose "best overall" over "best 100% open source." Microsoft is one of the the largest contributors on GitHub.

mwj 8y ago

Give me service availability over "source availability" any day. The gitlab paas product has shocking performance and uptime.

pritambaral 8y ago
Why not have both and host it yourself?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- geostyx 8y ago
  Maintaining a GitLab server takes time.
  - theyinwhy 8y ago
    This is just utterly wrong. yum upgrade Done. No problems for years now. Not a single one.
    - naikrovek 8y ago
      Are you using it? I've yet to come across anyone hosting their own gitlab instance that has not had trouble of some sort.
      - lttlrck 8y ago
        I am using it on Digital Ocean. I have had no issues whatsoever. Not only that, it’s a 1-click application too so I didn’t even have any setup issues. That’s not to say I won’t have trouble of some sort one day - but what software is 100% trouble free? Edit: typos
      - Sir_Substance 8y ago
        Really? I've been using and selfhosting it for years without issue.