Expect more enshittification coming your way.
Typical that the title does mention Google (who currently has a minority stake) but not Datadog, who would become the new owner.
But yeah, I don’t foresee a new owner making things better for gitlab.
I don’t know, seems like being owned by Google would be worse. They kill stuff left and right.
But they have been partially owned by Google for the past time, and the product has been great.
Google’s involvement is only going to lessen, so the only reason to put so much emphasis on that in the headline would be to get those rage clicks.
Partially owned gives room for the product to stay alive. It being fully owned by Google makes it subject to being killed.
I guess responses like yours is the reason the headline didn’t mention the actual party gitlab is in talks with. People just love to have their villain.
Ignore the headline. Read the article. Gitlab is not about to sell to Google. They are about to sell to Datadog.
Selling to Datadog isn’t a guarantee. The most important detail is that they’re exploring a sale, and other companies are probably going to be interested.
Oh, neat, DataDog. So if you add a new label to a repo your monthly bill would rocket to the moon.
I feel this so much. We evaluated them at work, and while they did pretty much exactly what we wanted, we weren’t willing to pay their fees.
This worries me, i can see the new owners killing the Community edition and/or enshittifying the software to uselessness. Do we have a FOSS alternative that does the whole CI/CD pipeline too?
Gitea and forejo are doing some amazing work
Codeberg, but you have to manually apply for the CI/CD part. Also, Codeberg only allows you to host FOSS projects.
SourceHut is worth checking out. It leans towards minimal aesthetics, but is actually very functional. Granted, the workflow is quite different than other VCS providers, but you may grow into it, like I have :)
SourceHut burns my eyes. Has Drew (or someone to whom he has delegated such things) announced a dark mode yet?
Dark Reader browser extension or just a userstyle. For me, Dark Reader works very well for sourcehut.
Thanks, but I know browser extensions exist. I was just curious whether it’s going to be supported natively.
No. But, FWIW, Dark Reader, and similar extensions work very well on the site.
BTW, SourceHut now automatically switches to light/dark mode based on your OS settings.
Unless I made a mistake checking it the last time, it’s like Drew saw your comment and took it personally xD
Haha… Maybe he keeps tabs on the fediverse?
It doesn’t work with Resist Fingerprinting mode (which hides OS settings), and doesn’t have a manual toggle that I can see, but does now have a
clause in its CSS. That’s a step in the right direction. :)Thanks for the tip!
Why not fork the latest CE?
I don’t think tech people understand how bad it is that Microsoft owns GitHub.
GitLab is one of the few places people could go if GitHub enshittifies too much. Google’s stake in it (or full ownership of it) would probably be a good thing, because it would be seen as an important strategic hedge against Microsoft. If it’s bought by a smaller player, I can see GitHub squeezing it into irrelevance.
I view Gitea as the real alternative to GitHub. I was very big on GitLab for a long time, and think any competition is good, but I’d really like it if more people could seriously invest in Gitea.
They’re also working on ActivityPub support: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/18240
Forgejo?
It’s ironic that your alternative for GitHub is hosted on GitHub. That doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence.
They host on Github for more visibility.
Yeah, I don’t see how that’s an issue at all. If Github kicks them, they’ll just push to their own instance. They’d lose a few days to reconfigure the CI/CD or whatever, but that’s about it.
I just wish GitHub wasn’t part of MS anymore.
I also don’t want Gitlab owned by another megacorp.
Something funded by the government but ran by a public org would be ideal.
I just wish GitHub wasn’t part of MS anymore.
Too bad. Microsoft is using it as part of their extremely long term plan to control the software that developers use to do their jobs. VSCode is another front in that battle. Things are going slowly, but they’re winning.
VSCode is another front in that battle. Things are going slowly, but they’re winning.
They replaced Atom with VSCode, but some of the Atom devs are now working on Zed, which finally has Linux support. Or for a paid alternative, we have the Jetbrains suite, which can be excellent if that’s your thing.
For Github, we still have Gitlab as an alternative, but once that goes, we have Gitea or Forgejo to move to.
The thing is that many developers are a vengeful bunch who hate big corps with their enshittification fetishes and love open source solutions. Microsoft has to tread really carefully here.
but some of the Atom devs are now working on Zed
Ok… but just because someone’s working on an alternative doesn’t mean that alternative will be able to unseat VSCode. Microsoft is spending tens of millions per year to gently lock people into VSCode.
The thing is that many developers are a vengeful bunch who hate big corps with their enshittification fetishes and love open source solutions. Microsoft has to tread really carefully here.
And they have been treading carefully for decades, and it’s working. The people who supposedly hate big corps mostly use GitHub and VSCode. They’re heating the water very, very slowly, and the frogs are staying in the pot.
Something funded by the government but ran by a public org would be ideal.
“the government” which government?
I don’t want software beholden to any state interests. I see donationware as the way to go; or if donations can’t sustain server costs, donations for sustaining development, and then a public flagship instance which people can pay to use, or self-host for their own server costs.
Why the government? There are plenty of free git hosting services out there, take your pick. If gitlab goes away, move to gitea, forgejo, gitosis, etc.
I’ve been using raw Git for a while now. Glad I switched from GitHub for personal projects.
Can’t share worth a shit that way, but 90% of my code is highly specific, personal scripts that I just want to maintain history and notes for. And a book I’m writing.
The moment I realized that “SSH login” on hosted git forges like GitHub literally just means “there’s a folder on a computer that you’re connecting to over SSH” was crazy to me. I realized that there’s no need to selfhost gitlab, gitea, forgejo. Just put a folder on user@host in the repos folder, then set the origin url to user@host:~/repos/myrepo
I think there may be some init commands needed before, like git init --bare or something
Yeah, I use personal git repos for most things. But, it’s not as convenient if you want to collaborate on something, or if you want to access features like building docker images and having them put into a repo. There’s definitely a need for a place for open-source and free software projects to live. And, I personally don’t want them on a platform owned by Microsoft.
GitLab is a parade of avoidable CVEs. There are better alternatives to worry for.
What if source forge bought it lmao
Let’s explore the scenarios
Scenario 1: GitLab is acquired by Google
Scenario 2: GitLab is acquired by Apple
Scenario 3: GitLab is acquired by a State government
Scenario 4: Gitlab is acquired by Amazon
Scenario 5: Gitlab is acquired by the Linux Foundation
Scenario 6: Gitlab is acquired by the Federal Government
Scenario 7: Gitlab is acquired by IBM
Scenario 8: Gitlab is acquired by Wal*Mart
What if JetBrains bought it though
Let’s be real, 3 and 6 are not possible
This would explain why some people I know that work there are panicking.
Fuck
If that happens, I’ll create a preemptive PR on KilledByGoogle.
