5 ms·

It was done. There even was those small banners that said something in the way of "if you have gmail I won't mail you" etc. Thing is, the broader public don't

by tjoff 7y ago

It was done. There even was those small banners that said something in the way of "if you have gmail I won't mail you" etc. Thing is, the broader public don't care. The difference between gitlab and gmail is primarily that developers care more about this stuff and value their code more than most people care about their email. They are also much more informed in the matter, most using gmail haven't got a clue.

z92 7y ago
There's a difference between gitlab and gmail. People pay for gitlab while gmail is free. Google can easily declare "either you take it for what it is, or leave." Gitlab can't.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- derf_ 7y ago
  A lot of institutions used to run their own e-mail. Over the years I've watched as my e-mail addresses (both universities and my current employer) have been replaced by Gmail on the backend. All of them stopped being willing to manage e-mail themselves. None of them were willing to use a less surveillance-oriented provider. That choice wasn't made by consumers. It was made by the same kind of informed IT people. I suspect it wasn't free, either.
  - hunter2_ 7y ago
    For universities, it actually is free (as in beer), aside from the university staff's compensation toward the migration.
  - godzillabrennus 7y ago
    I remember when Dartmouth ran blitz mail... when google talk supported jabber... when people complained mostly about MAPI... It’s a shame that so many innovations are being squashed in communication because of the “free” price for cloud solutions. Google is learning so much about students thanks to this program.
    - red_admiral 7y ago
      I thought the main problem with e-mail specifically was spam, and the reputation model that's arisen to combat it: a medium-sized university running their own e-mail service runs a risk of getting their domain blacklisted, if a few accounts are compromised and start sending out mass mailings.
- hunter2_ 7y ago
  Both are freemium. However, there's slight truthiness in your claim by way of the difference in probability that any given non-business user pays.
- natmaka 7y ago
  Gitlab has a fairly powerful "free" (as 'gratis') service-plan. https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/gitlab-com/feature-comparison/ https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/gitlab-com/feature-comparis...
- cellar_door 7y ago
  My understanding was that Gitlab wanted to collect your data to improve their product. Google is collecting your data to sell ads. I understand the reticence towards third party telemetry, but refusing basic interaction tracking for a product you pay for is just hurting yourself, even if you're already satisfied with the service. You don't go to the doctor for a checkup and then refuse bloodwork. Obviously there are rules around privacy for medical records that don't exist for interaction tracking. But I don't think the solution should be to get rid of tracking entirely, it should be to extend reasonable privacy rights and protections to our online data.
  - scotth 7y ago
    Were people really arguing for removal of telemetry altogether? I would think that many of us are comfortable with aspects of tracking. For me, the concern was the value of the content. It might as well have been my bank saying they were going to start embedding disqus threads.
    - t0astbread 7y ago
      Not everyone wants tracking, even if that means sacrificing software quality. Making it mandatory is never excusable.
      - nidificate 7y ago
        It was opt-out, not mandatory.
        t0astbread 7y ago
        Was it? My bad. I thought I read something about GitLab planning to block access to the platform until you accepted the new ToS but maybe I was wrong. My point still stands though.
  - onion2k 7y ago
    My understanding was that Gitlab wanted to collect your data to improve their product. Gitlab could have collected anonymous data, with opting out of collection as the default, and promised not to sell it if they seriously believed it was about improving their product. Plenty of products record telemetry data only if you opt in to the program. Users understand and often accept that. That approach would have generated fewer headlines.
- bongobongo 7y ago
  Gitlab has an excellent free plan, in fact it’s so good I honestly don’t understand how they can afford it and doubt it will last (but really hope it will for individual developers). They even give you Docker registries and thousands of CI hours.
  - harrygeez 7y ago
    > doubt it will last Yeah it won't. It's just too good to be true
open-source-ux 7y ago
"...developers care more about this stuff..." No, they only care when the tools they are using are targeted. Otherwise, they couldn't care less. We have tracking on websites and in apps on an industrial scale - built by developers in technology companies. We even have tracking of school kids courtesy of ChromeOS. When have developers ever shown any care about that? When have they ever spoken out about that? They're more likely to rush to defend that software and the company that built it: It's not being used to build profiles, or the data is aggregated and anonymous. Presumably, if GitLab tracked behaviour 'anonymously' and in aggregate form, that would all be fine? Didn't think so. The hypocrisy that runs through the programming profession when it comes to online tracking really knows no end.
- scotth 7y ago
  If I had a guarantee from Gitlab that _they_ were scrubbing the data, I would have no problem. I get the sense they know what they're doing (naive, maybe) However, giving a third party script, potentially unvetted, access to the crown jewels of the company I work for? No fucking way. Different. Not a double standard.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    They are tracking things anonymously at least in some places, judging by what I've read in the linked Gitlab issue tracker threads. The debacle started with someone higher up requesting to start recording user ID with that data, in order for the "growth team" to be able to do "experiments".
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

by tjoff 7y ago

z92 7y ago

There's a difference between gitlab and gmail. People pay for gitlab while gmail is free. Google can easily declare "either you take it for what it is, or leave." Gitlab can't.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
derf_ 7y ago
A lot of institutions used to run their own e-mail. Over the years I've watched as my e-mail addresses (both universities and my current employer) have been replaced by Gmail on the backend. All of them stopped being willing to manage e-mail themselves. None of them were willing to use a less surveillance-oriented provider. That choice wasn't made by consumers. It was made by the same kind of informed IT people. I suspect it wasn't free, either.
- hunter2_ 7y ago
  For universities, it actually is free (as in beer), aside from the university staff's compensation toward the migration.
- godzillabrennus 7y ago
  I remember when Dartmouth ran blitz mail... when google talk supported jabber... when people complained mostly about MAPI... It’s a shame that so many innovations are being squashed in communication because of the “free” price for cloud solutions. Google is learning so much about students thanks to this program.
  - red_admiral 7y ago
    I thought the main problem with e-mail specifically was spam, and the reputation model that's arisen to combat it: a medium-sized university running their own e-mail service runs a risk of getting their domain blacklisted, if a few accounts are compromised and start sending out mass mailings.
hunter2_ 7y ago
Both are freemium. However, there's slight truthiness in your claim by way of the difference in probability that any given non-business user pays.
natmaka 7y ago
Gitlab has a fairly powerful "free" (as 'gratis') service-plan. https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/gitlab-com/feature-comparison/ https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/gitlab-com/feature-comparis...
cellar_door 7y ago
My understanding was that Gitlab wanted to collect your data to improve their product. Google is collecting your data to sell ads. I understand the reticence towards third party telemetry, but refusing basic interaction tracking for a product you pay for is just hurting yourself, even if you're already satisfied with the service. You don't go to the doctor for a checkup and then refuse bloodwork. Obviously there are rules around privacy for medical records that don't exist for interaction tracking. But I don't think the solution should be to get rid of tracking entirely, it should be to extend reasonable privacy rights and protections to our online data.
- scotth 7y ago
  Were people really arguing for removal of telemetry altogether? I would think that many of us are comfortable with aspects of tracking. For me, the concern was the value of the content. It might as well have been my bank saying they were going to start embedding disqus threads.
  - t0astbread 7y ago
    Not everyone wants tracking, even if that means sacrificing software quality. Making it mandatory is never excusable.
    - nidificate 7y ago
      It was opt-out, not mandatory.
      - t0astbread 7y ago
        Was it? My bad. I thought I read something about GitLab planning to block access to the platform until you accepted the new ToS but maybe I was wrong. My point still stands though.
- onion2k 7y ago
  My understanding was that Gitlab wanted to collect your data to improve their product. Gitlab could have collected anonymous data, with opting out of collection as the default, and promised not to sell it if they seriously believed it was about improving their product. Plenty of products record telemetry data only if you opt in to the program. Users understand and often accept that. That approach would have generated fewer headlines.
bongobongo 7y ago
Gitlab has an excellent free plan, in fact it’s so good I honestly don’t understand how they can afford it and doubt it will last (but really hope it will for individual developers). They even give you Docker registries and thousands of CI hours.
- harrygeez 7y ago
  > doubt it will last Yeah it won't. It's just too good to be true

open-source-ux 7y ago

"...developers care more about this stuff..." No, they only care when the tools they are using are targeted. Otherwise, they couldn't care less. We have tracking on websites and in apps on an industrial scale - built by developers in technology companies. We even have tracking of school kids courtesy of ChromeOS. When have developers ever shown any care about that? When have they ever spoken out about that? They're more likely to rush to defend that software and the company that built it: It's not being used to build profiles, or the data is aggregated and anonymous. Presumably, if GitLab tracked behaviour 'anonymously' and in aggregate form, that would all be fine? Didn't think so. The hypocrisy that runs through the programming profession when it comes to online tracking really knows no end.

scotth 7y ago
If I had a guarantee from Gitlab that _they_ were scrubbing the data, I would have no problem. I get the sense they know what they're doing (naive, maybe) However, giving a third party script, potentially unvetted, access to the crown jewels of the company I work for? No fucking way. Different. Not a double standard.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  They are tracking things anonymously at least in some places, judging by what I've read in the linked Gitlab issue tracker threads. The debacle started with someone higher up requesting to start recording user ID with that data, in order for the "growth team" to be able to do "experiments".
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]