5 ms·

It is not BitBucket vs. GitLab, as nothing is noted on BitBucket, but only GitLab. Their title should have been, "Look, it is GitLab, use it!" I think GitLab i

It is not BitBucket vs. GitLab, as nothing is noted on BitBucket, but only GitLab. Their title should have been, "Look, it is GitLab, use it!" I think GitLab is great, but still prefer GitHub: no need to worry about hardware failures, or management. Someone does that for me, and does it well.

eloisant 11y ago
GitHub is great for open source projects, but it sucks for private repositories: * No private repo in the free plan * Pricing per repo in the paid plan - probably fine for a startup with just a couple products, unusable for a service company that starts a new project every month So if you care about private repos, BitBucket vs GitLab is interesting.
jobvandervoort 11y ago
We could have made it more clear where we got our inspiration. We went through the most requested Bitbucket features and compiled the list from there. Regarding your second comment, you do not need to host your own instance if you don't want that. You can host all your repos, public and private, for free at Gitlab.com. There are no limits, besides a 10GB limit for git annex and no restrictions to its usage.
teacup50 11y ago
GitHub means tying your company's incredibly valuable central assets to a 3rd-party hosted service, despite the service being brain-dead-easy to host locally. If you're avoiding servers, that also means that you have different accounts for every SaaS service replacement you use, and administering permissions and accounts means a lot of extra and pointless labor. Using custom code to facilitate your business' processes -- such as server-side plugins for things like your source control -- becomes impossible. Business processes become dependent on SaaS + data dependence that can't easily be exported from the SaaS services, and you're paying out the nose for them every month -- locally licensed software is cheaper, for quite obvious reasons, all across the board. All so that you can avoid a once-in-N years failure of a hard drive and running apt-get? No thanks. That's an insane cost/benefit analysis. Server administration should be easier than it is, but it's not hard, and I'm not about to make every other business process worse just to avoid it.
sytse 11y ago
GitLab CEO here. If you don't want to worry about hosting it yourself (which I totally understand) please consider using GitLab.com https://about.gitlab.com/gitlab-com/ https://about.gitlab.com/gitlab-com/ it has unlimited private repo's for free.
- stephengoodwin 11y ago
  Just out of curiosity, do you know the marginal costs of hosting a free private repo? How much of your upkeep costs are hosting free repos vs paid?
  - sytse 11y ago
    There are no paid repo's, all repo's are free. The costs are very limited (low single digit thousands). We pay for it with money we get from on-premises subscribers. We think this will be like email, the storage costs can be offset with other income. Instead of advertising we're thinking about offering a marketplace (similar to what Heroku does). But that is a long term plan, for the next few years we're focussed on growing it.

eloisant 11y ago

GitHub is great for open source projects, but it sucks for private repositories: * No private repo in the free plan * Pricing per repo in the paid plan - probably fine for a startup with just a couple products, unusable for a service company that starts a new project every month So if you care about private repos, BitBucket vs GitLab is interesting.

jobvandervoort 11y ago

We could have made it more clear where we got our inspiration. We went through the most requested Bitbucket features and compiled the list from there. Regarding your second comment, you do not need to host your own instance if you don't want that. You can host all your repos, public and private, for free at Gitlab.com. There are no limits, besides a 10GB limit for git annex and no restrictions to its usage.

teacup50 11y ago

GitHub means tying your company's incredibly valuable central assets to a 3rd-party hosted service, despite the service being brain-dead-easy to host locally. If you're avoiding servers, that also means that you have different accounts for every SaaS service replacement you use, and administering permissions and accounts means a lot of extra and pointless labor. Using custom code to facilitate your business' processes -- such as server-side plugins for things like your source control -- becomes impossible. Business processes become dependent on SaaS + data dependence that can't easily be exported from the SaaS services, and you're paying out the nose for them every month -- locally licensed software is cheaper, for quite obvious reasons, all across the board. All so that you can avoid a once-in-N years failure of a hard drive and running apt-get? No thanks. That's an insane cost/benefit analysis. Server administration should be easier than it is, but it's not hard, and I'm not about to make every other business process worse just to avoid it.

sytse 11y ago

GitLab CEO here. If you don't want to worry about hosting it yourself (which I totally understand) please consider using GitLab.com https://about.gitlab.com/gitlab-com/ https://about.gitlab.com/gitlab-com/ it has unlimited private repo's for free.

stephengoodwin 11y ago
Just out of curiosity, do you know the marginal costs of hosting a free private repo? How much of your upkeep costs are hosting free repos vs paid?
- sytse 11y ago
  There are no paid repo's, all repo's are free. The costs are very limited (low single digit thousands). We pay for it with money we get from on-premises subscribers. We think this will be like email, the storage costs can be offset with other income. Instead of advertising we're thinking about offering a marketplace (similar to what Heroku does). But that is a long term plan, for the next few years we're focussed on growing it.