4 ms·

> GitHub's best feature is that you don't have to pay for anything If this is your conclusion, I don’t see how you’ve come to it based on what you wrote. Gitl

> GitHub's best feature is that you don't have to pay for anything If this is your conclusion, I don’t see how you’ve come to it based on what you wrote. Gitlab might be a no-brainer to run on your own server, but you still have to maintain it, patch it and put it back in case the server stops working. It might never happen in practice, but it’s a risk. And in practice, the cost of a small/medium server on a VPS is anyway the same (or higher) cost you would pay for a paid plan on Github which comes with much better uptime overall. > Time to clone, fetch, push, will be much faster, it's common to find dedicated servers with at least 100Mbps of dedicated bandwidth This depends on the number of users who use your Gitlab instance. It would not be the case for medium sized companies. For your own use case, fine. But for a project like curl? That might be pulled constantly from all around the world? GitHub best feature is, actually, the amazing user experience it provides, which is often overlooked and compared against the myriad of features Gitlab provides - despite Gitlab being way, way less user friendly than Github.

1337shadow 6y ago
I've come to this conclusion because all the other arguments come weak in my opinion, as such the only upside remaining for GitHub is that it's free to use, based on what I wrote. As for user friendliness I prefer gitlab but I get your point, UX would be a bit better for certain types of users in GitHub but a bit better for other types of users in GitLab. I do understand your point about bandwidth, because in Europe we get great, cheap, unmetered bandwidth, which is something that I don't ever see on american providers on cheap servers, even on oneprovider.com, but on scaleway you do get unmetered bandwidth from 200 to 500 Mbit/s for 7.20€/month here https://www.scaleway.com/en/virtual-instances/development/ https://www.scaleway.com/en/virtual-instances/development/ however, this small instance might not run gitlab really well, you should go for Gitea if you were to self host a git server on this server. Anyway, I mean that I get that Americans and Europeans don't have the same relation with bandwidth. So of course, everything is going to depend on many external factors. YMMV for sure, but just for the sake of the example I have tried cloning curl from both github.com and my gitlab server: it's 1m52.233s vs 1m30.256s that's probably a 20% difference. It's true that GitHub has made a lot of efforts to improve speed because it used to be a lot worse. For you 20% might not be a lot, or even meaningless, but I really spend a lot of time pushing and pulling across a bunch of repos, say 30 minutes a day 22.5 days a month, that's 135 minutes I make a month, considering I spend around two times 10 minutes per months running the server upgrade, I'm left with a benefit of 115 minutes per months, that's 23 hours a year: a complete day, and 9.6 days after 10 years ... sorry, I would understand this seems far fetched to you, I plead guilty to being the kind that optimizes this kind of things on the long term, a Lean Sensei. BUT, I have paid for my server, so really, that'd be the only downside from my POV. As for the git usage of the curl project, what I got from github insights is, for the last 24h: Excluding merges, 2 authors have pushed 5 commits to master and 5 commits to all branches. On master, 7 files have changed and there have been 153 additions and 38 deletions. I don't /feel/ like they'd be saturating 100Mbps. And there's also self hosted CI, I just can't live with non-dedicated CI hardware, can't wait, can't stand even paid hosted CI, too slow, and my devs also love that CI just instantly "jumps" on their patches to start crunching them. Because CI is on a simple dedicated server, docker cache also just works without the network bottleneck. But then again, keep in mind I'm not talking about "big corporate setups" here, if you have hundreds of devs then it's not the same story.

1337shadow 6y ago

I've come to this conclusion because all the other arguments come weak in my opinion, as such the only upside remaining for GitHub is that it's free to use, based on what I wrote. As for user friendliness I prefer gitlab but I get your point, UX would be a bit better for certain types of users in GitHub but a bit better for other types of users in GitLab. I do understand your point about bandwidth, because in Europe we get great, cheap, unmetered bandwidth, which is something that I don't ever see on american providers on cheap servers, even on oneprovider.com, but on scaleway you do get unmetered bandwidth from 200 to 500 Mbit/s for 7.20€/month here https://www.scaleway.com/en/virtual-instances/development/ https://www.scaleway.com/en/virtual-instances/development/ however, this small instance might not run gitlab really well, you should go for Gitea if you were to self host a git server on this server. Anyway, I mean that I get that Americans and Europeans don't have the same relation with bandwidth. So of course, everything is going to depend on many external factors. YMMV for sure, but just for the sake of the example I have tried cloning curl from both github.com and my gitlab server: it's 1m52.233s vs 1m30.256s that's probably a 20% difference. It's true that GitHub has made a lot of efforts to improve speed because it used to be a lot worse. For you 20% might not be a lot, or even meaningless, but I really spend a lot of time pushing and pulling across a bunch of repos, say 30 minutes a day 22.5 days a month, that's 135 minutes I make a month, considering I spend around two times 10 minutes per months running the server upgrade, I'm left with a benefit of 115 minutes per months, that's 23 hours a year: a complete day, and 9.6 days after 10 years ... sorry, I would understand this seems far fetched to you, I plead guilty to being the kind that optimizes this kind of things on the long term, a Lean Sensei. BUT, I have paid for my server, so really, that'd be the only downside from my POV. As for the git usage of the curl project, what I got from github insights is, for the last 24h: Excluding merges, 2 authors have pushed 5 commits to master and 5 commits to all branches. On master, 7 files have changed and there have been 153 additions and 38 deletions. I don't /feel/ like they'd be saturating 100Mbps. And there's also self hosted CI, I just can't live with non-dedicated CI hardware, can't wait, can't stand even paid hosted CI, too slow, and my devs also love that CI just instantly "jumps" on their patches to start crunching them. Because CI is on a simple dedicated server, docker cache also just works without the network bottleneck. But then again, keep in mind I'm not talking about "big corporate setups" here, if you have hundreds of devs then it's not the same story.