4 ms·

So you evidently see a demand for Gitlab support (you can barely reject the requests at the same rate they come), at the same time you claim that there is simpl

So you evidently see a demand for Gitlab support (you can barely reject the requests at the same rate they come), at the same time you claim that there is simply no market for it?

Jweb_Guru 2y ago
Yeah, this is a very strange article that completely contradicts its headline.
- lnxg33k1 2y ago
  I start to recognise idiots when they start talking about absolute stuff, like "freedom of speech means you can say everything" or "developers don't know anything about X" this confirms my rule
davedx 2y ago
I think the argument is supposed to be about ROI but it didn't really drive the point home: They don't want to invest in integrating their product in Gitlab, because it's 1/4 the size of Github and they see trends pointing to a Github resurgence. If you have limited resources to build integrations then sure, I guess?
bakugo 2y ago
Seems like a classic case of someone making a decision based purely on personal opinion (I don't want to support Gitlab because I don't like it) and then working backwards in an attempt to find arguments to support that decision (and really struggling in this case, "50% of the developers I spoke to used Gitlab, but Github's profits are higher so clearly Gitlab is irrelevant" is particularly egregious)
ho_schi 2y ago
Sounds to me like We don’t support Linux because the low marketshare on sales. Because you don’t provide a native port, support and don’t even sale? Which is why your own special MBA market sales don’t change. And that why a lot of people suffer from bad software - it was the first known and they don’t think in long term. PS: GitHub is usually not an option for closed-source software. Not because of the uncertain development of the fees. Microsoft’s security track - especially for the cloud - is bad. And if you lock yourself to cloud services you end up in vendor lock-in. And that’s also open-source projects tend to Gitlab and others. As usual, GitHub was the first big player.
rswail 2y ago
I think the article was trying to say that everyone running Gitlab is running the free version so they aren't a market with the necessary expenditure to be buying addons to the free product. This is like freemium^2. People aren't buying gitlab licenses because a) too expensive [1] and b) not needed for the functionality in the free product. [1] "too expensive" is in the eye of the beholder and requires visibility of ROI, COGS, and development velocity.

So you evidently see a demand for Gitlab support (you can barely reject the requests at the same rate they come), at the same time you claim that there is simply no market for it?

Jweb_Guru 2y ago

Yeah, this is a very strange article that completely contradicts its headline.

lnxg33k1 2y ago
I start to recognise idiots when they start talking about absolute stuff, like "freedom of speech means you can say everything" or "developers don't know anything about X" this confirms my rule

davedx 2y ago

I think the argument is supposed to be about ROI but it didn't really drive the point home: They don't want to invest in integrating their product in Gitlab, because it's 1/4 the size of Github and they see trends pointing to a Github resurgence. If you have limited resources to build integrations then sure, I guess?

bakugo 2y ago

Seems like a classic case of someone making a decision based purely on personal opinion (I don't want to support Gitlab because I don't like it) and then working backwards in an attempt to find arguments to support that decision (and really struggling in this case, "50% of the developers I spoke to used Gitlab, but Github's profits are higher so clearly Gitlab is irrelevant" is particularly egregious)

ho_schi 2y ago

Sounds to me like We don’t support Linux because the low marketshare on sales. Because you don’t provide a native port, support and don’t even sale? Which is why your own special MBA market sales don’t change. And that why a lot of people suffer from bad software - it was the first known and they don’t think in long term. PS: GitHub is usually not an option for closed-source software. Not because of the uncertain development of the fees. Microsoft’s security track - especially for the cloud - is bad. And if you lock yourself to cloud services you end up in vendor lock-in. And that’s also open-source projects tend to Gitlab and others. As usual, GitHub was the first big player.

rswail 2y ago

I think the article was trying to say that everyone running Gitlab is running the free version so they aren't a market with the necessary expenditure to be buying addons to the free product. This is like freemium^2. People aren't buying gitlab licenses because a) too expensive [1] and b) not needed for the functionality in the free product. [1] "too expensive" is in the eye of the beholder and requires visibility of ROI, COGS, and development velocity.