5 ms·

Seems silly to move just because MS bought github. Are there other compelling reasons?

by w8rbt 8y ago

blibble 8y ago
not saying it's the reason but their funding comes from Google Ventures http://uk.businessinsider.com/gitlab-raises-20-million-from-gv-2017-10 http://uk.businessinsider.com/gitlab-raises-20-million-from-...
- k__ 8y ago
  Yes, I also read they would do this to prepare for a Google buy.
  - jhall1468 8y ago
    That makes little sense for Google. The corporate cultures are very different, GitLab isn't a major money maker and it does nothing for them internally since they use a mono-repo. Cloud platforms can change after acquisitions. If Google wanted them they would have already bought.
    - jonny_eh 8y ago
      Free Gitlab membership with a paid GCP account sounds attractive.
    - jacques_chester 8y ago
      > The corporate cultures are very different Generally, companies are not bought for culture. Folks say a lot about their most valuable resource being their people, but typically a purchaser wants to buy assets. In software that will be less about cash or inventory or plants and more about customer contracts, partnerships, brands, trademarks, patents, copyrights, existing sales organisations and so on. > GitLab isn't a major money maker ... If Google wanted them they would have already bought. They might buy simply to have a hedge against Github. Gitlab comes with a lot of independent brand awareness that Google has not, so far, been able to gain against Github in this area. The cloud providers are involved in a no-prisoners effort to lock in customers while the market emerges for the first time. This is golden age of rail stuff, there are massive path dependencies that will be very difficult to unwind. Each will grow aggressively on every edge of their current surfaces, whether by implementation, partnership or purchase. Or all three, in varying orders, as they think works best. They will rapidly copy each other to try and prevent competitors gaining an unassailable lead in some segment. Disclosure: I work for Pivotal. We have partnerships with Google and Microsoft.
    - brazzledazzle 8y ago
      It would let GCP compete with some of the code hosting services Amazon offers.
    - bdcravens 8y ago
      Gitlab is more than just git hosting. It provides many pieces of the development workflow (like CI, staging deployments, etc). Moreover, Firebase wasn't much of a money maker either, and took a smaller amount of funding than Gitlab.
    - anothergoogler 8y ago
      > it does nothing for them internally since they use a mono-repo Completely irrelevant; Google does not version-control their projects substantially with Git. They used Perforce for a long time and now I understand they use some internal, proprietary VCS.
  - tehlike 8y ago
    This is the kind of thing that happens after acqusition.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
koiz 8y ago
kubernetes
- ryanSrich 8y ago
  AKS is solid, but agree that GKE is the better experience.
  - cbHXBY1D 8y ago
    It was before AKS was released. ACS was Azure's Kubernetes entrant and it was hot garbage. AKS is a solid system built by Brendan Burns and his team at Microsoft.
    - ryanSrich 8y ago
      I never got around to trying ACS and at this point have no reason to. My experience with AKS is mostly with the Azure REST API (building security and compliance tools around AKS). Unfortunately AKS isn't within scope of MSFTs BAA yet, so my focus has mostly been on other services like Cosmos and App Service.
simcop2387 8y ago
They had started this move months before Microsoft purchased Github. If you read the linked article one of the biggest reasons is that the GCP implementation of kubernetes and better integration with their CDN they'll be getting a significant performance boost. It's taken this long since they've had to make infrastructure changes along with some code changes to get it better supporting the deployment there.
- scurvy 8y ago
  What meaningful CDN integrations are in Google Cloud?
  - jacques_chester 8y ago
    Presumably: https://cloud.google.com/cdn/docs/ https://cloud.google.com/cdn/docs/
minimaxir 8y ago
A lot of companies have been migrating to GCP for pragmatic "it's cheaper" reasons. GitLab in particular had a big booth at Google Next.
apengwin 8y ago
From my experience, Google cloud is much easier to use than Azure.
ur-whale 8y ago
Sounds like a rather good reason to me. As a matter of fact they should in fact avoid any kind of cloud vendor lock-in and spread the deployment across the big 3
mjw1007 8y ago
When they were talking about moving off cloud altogether, they mentioned that the reason they were on Azure in the first place was that they were given a pile of free credits. So I suppose once those ran out it was a good idea to choose the best provider from first principles, rather than letting the inertia marketing succeed.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

Seems silly to move just because MS bought github. Are there other compelling reasons?

by w8rbt 8y ago

Seems silly to move just because MS bought github. Are there other compelling reasons?

not saying it's the reason but their funding comes from Google Ventures http://uk.businessinsider.com/gitlab-raises-20-million-from-gv-2017-10 http://uk.businessinsider.com/gitlab-raises-20-million-from-...

k__ 8y ago
Yes, I also read they would do this to prepare for a Google buy.
- jhall1468 8y ago
  That makes little sense for Google. The corporate cultures are very different, GitLab isn't a major money maker and it does nothing for them internally since they use a mono-repo. Cloud platforms can change after acquisitions. If Google wanted them they would have already bought.
  - jonny_eh 8y ago
    Free Gitlab membership with a paid GCP account sounds attractive.
  - jacques_chester 8y ago
    > The corporate cultures are very different Generally, companies are not bought for culture. Folks say a lot about their most valuable resource being their people, but typically a purchaser wants to buy assets. In software that will be less about cash or inventory or plants and more about customer contracts, partnerships, brands, trademarks, patents, copyrights, existing sales organisations and so on. > GitLab isn't a major money maker ... If Google wanted them they would have already bought. They might buy simply to have a hedge against Github. Gitlab comes with a lot of independent brand awareness that Google has not, so far, been able to gain against Github in this area. The cloud providers are involved in a no-prisoners effort to lock in customers while the market emerges for the first time. This is golden age of rail stuff, there are massive path dependencies that will be very difficult to unwind. Each will grow aggressively on every edge of their current surfaces, whether by implementation, partnership or purchase. Or all three, in varying orders, as they think works best. They will rapidly copy each other to try and prevent competitors gaining an unassailable lead in some segment. Disclosure: I work for Pivotal. We have partnerships with Google and Microsoft.
  - brazzledazzle 8y ago
    It would let GCP compete with some of the code hosting services Amazon offers.
  - bdcravens 8y ago
    Gitlab is more than just git hosting. It provides many pieces of the development workflow (like CI, staging deployments, etc). Moreover, Firebase wasn't much of a money maker either, and took a smaller amount of funding than Gitlab.
  - anothergoogler 8y ago
    > it does nothing for them internally since they use a mono-repo Completely irrelevant; Google does not version-control their projects substantially with Git. They used Perforce for a long time and now I understand they use some internal, proprietary VCS.
- tehlike 8y ago
  This is the kind of thing that happens after acqusition.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

koiz 8y ago

kubernetes

ryanSrich 8y ago
AKS is solid, but agree that GKE is the better experience.
- cbHXBY1D 8y ago
  It was before AKS was released. ACS was Azure's Kubernetes entrant and it was hot garbage. AKS is a solid system built by Brendan Burns and his team at Microsoft.
  - ryanSrich 8y ago
    I never got around to trying ACS and at this point have no reason to. My experience with AKS is mostly with the Azure REST API (building security and compliance tools around AKS). Unfortunately AKS isn't within scope of MSFTs BAA yet, so my focus has mostly been on other services like Cosmos and App Service.

simcop2387 8y ago

They had started this move months before Microsoft purchased Github. If you read the linked article one of the biggest reasons is that the GCP implementation of kubernetes and better integration with their CDN they'll be getting a significant performance boost. It's taken this long since they've had to make infrastructure changes along with some code changes to get it better supporting the deployment there.

scurvy 8y ago
What meaningful CDN integrations are in Google Cloud?
- jacques_chester 8y ago
  Presumably: https://cloud.google.com/cdn/docs/ https://cloud.google.com/cdn/docs/

minimaxir 8y ago

A lot of companies have been migrating to GCP for pragmatic "it's cheaper" reasons. GitLab in particular had a big booth at Google Next.

apengwin 8y ago

From my experience, Google cloud is much easier to use than Azure.

ur-whale 8y ago

Sounds like a rather good reason to me. As a matter of fact they should in fact avoid any kind of cloud vendor lock-in and spread the deployment across the big 3

mjw1007 8y ago

When they were talking about moving off cloud altogether, they mentioned that the reason they were on Azure in the first place was that they were given a pile of free credits. So I suppose once those ran out it was a good idea to choose the best provider from first principles, rather than letting the inertia marketing succeed.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]