back to article How generous of GitHub to slash prices and make all its core features free. So what gives? Oh right, GitLab

GitHub is giving away its core services for free and has slashed the price of its paid Team plan by more than half – from $9 per user to $4. The offer is generous. Before Microsoft acquired the biz, the deal with GitHub was that public (in other words, open-source) repositories were free, but private repositories were paid. …

  1. fgeva

    Open Source != Public

    There has never been a requirement on github that public repositories had to be open source.

    1. englishr

      Re: Open Source != Public

      Public certainly doesn't imply FOSS, but if the public can download the source then surely that's the definition of OSS ?

      1. AdamWill

        Re: Open Source != Public

        No. The definition of OSS is the Open Source Definition:

        https://opensource.org/osd

        you will notice that doesn't say "if the public can download the source, that's it".

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Open Source != Public

          You're just splitting farts for the sake of it.

          1. Robert Grant Silver badge

            Re: Open Source != Public

            No, there's a difference, and it's easy:

            Microsoft allow a select few partners to see their source code. That doesn't mean those partners can do what they like with the source code.

            Seeing source code doesn't imply it's open source.

            1. AdamWill

              Re: Open Source != Public

              that's what I said, so I'm not sure why I got six downvotes for saying the definition of "open source" is the Open Source Definition written by the Open Source Initiative. Reading comprehension issues? Ah, well.

  2. Gonzo wizard Bronze badge

    Ooh... nice.

    I'm in the interesting position of using both. Github for my own stuff, been on there for nearly ten years, and Gitlab at work. I prefer the Github web UI but really like Gitlab CI. Github's CI is still a bit clunky for my liking. If I need to start doing a lot of CI then I will be switching. For me, that's the attractiveness of Gitlab...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Ooh... nice.

      I'd like some way to reuse images as it takes forever for docker to start in gitlab. Especially if you have two jobs on a pipeline, build and test, they both get created, ran then dumped separately.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    All your BASE

    Once employers started requiring developers to publish a portfolio on github it became attractive to the likes of MS.

    Once MS started changing the direction of github so as to monetize it then the environment becomes ripe for someone else to spring up and compete with github for those who remember MS's many abuses.

    Nothing here is suprising beyond the acceptance of developers to allow a third party to hold their IP which previously was protected by not only the law but also direct control by the developer of whom got to know it existed.

    Personally I always preferred completely controlling what I owned rather than allowing third party "accidents" where my work could be stolen, alteast my way I knew exactly who I had given access to.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: All your BASE

      Github was monetized early. Here's an obvious example from 2011: Introducing GitHub Enterprise. Your bias is showing.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: All your BASE

        @"Your bias is showing." less bias than experience, perhaps if you had as much then you would understand.

        When share holders are a company's only consideration then what you consider monetizing is but the tip of the iceberg i.e. the dangerous majority is hidden until you are wrecked upon it.

        I would be quite happy if MS stepped off the road to hell if only to set free the abundance of excellent code written by all the third parties over decades for the windows platform but even Bill has given up in disgust and distanced himself.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The pricing change doesn't alter the fact that GitLab is not Microsoft (or, for the time being, any other Silicon Valley / Seattle giant). That, reasonable company ethics and being open source (unlike Github) are the three things it has going for it.

    1. Len Silver badge
      Happy

      I'm quite interested in Gitlab's ability to be entirely self hosted, in your own infrastructure without dependencies on (and look-ins from) others.

      1. batfastad

        If looking for something self-hosted then I'd recommend taking a look at Gitea (newer fork of Gogs). I have found it much easier to deploy and manage than GitLab.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          I do use and like Gitea and it is indeed dead simple to deploy. On the other hand, it doesn't provide any continuous integration / delivery out of the box. You could roll your own by hooking into the Gitea API but at that point you are at a level of effort that exceeds that of deploying a GitLab instance.

          Feature-wise, GitLab is also much more convenient for managing big, complex projects.

          On the other hand, if mostly all you need is a Git repository viewer + bug tracker + wiki, Gitea does a perfectly good job with very low effort.

          As for GitHub, I think the only thing it's got going for it is a critical mass of users who already have accounts in it, but that makes it more of a "social media" than a developer site. If you are a big open source project that for some reason needs lots of people hammering your issue tracker, then it might do the job, otherwise you're almost certainly better off with one of the other forges.

          Horses for courses, etc.

  5. pgm

    Thought it said Grubhub for half off.

  6. James Hughes 1

    I use both

    I prefer Github's UI, Gitlab seems quite clunky in places in comparison. But there are pros and cons for both. I'm absolutely not bothered by who owns either of them, or who monetises either of them. They are just tools to get the work done.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    `So they're trying to Netscape GitLab?

    For those with grey hair (or none left), this sounds remarkably familiar..

  8. malfeasance

    It's might hurt bitbucket more.

    I'm in the "lovely" position of using github (for opensource), gitlab (on-prem hosted), bitbucket (because we were using this before we were acquired, paid-for-private stuffs); oh, and some of the stuff on github is mirrored into gitlab.com.

    We were all about (pre-acquisition) "use my own infrastructure" for doing the CI/CD; whether that's circleci/appveyor/travis-ci/ my very own jenkins or whatever. In fact I have circle-ci/appveyor/github-actions/travis-ci setup for most of our opensource projects to at least run tests: mainly because we can, but also because using multiple pipelines mean that when we have intermittent network-y style failures we can eyeball the PR and still approve it. If 3 out of 4 work, then it's probably an isolated problem that will eventually go-away... if none of them work, then we know it's a regression..

    The org itself is in the process of standardising on gitlab on-prem; which means that we were going to move bitbucket into gitlab on prem; but now, we probably won't bother, we'll just move all the existing BB repos into github as private repos, since the opensource stuff will have to live somewhere...

    Atlassian can't ignore github or gitlab, so jira/trello will always almost certainly have connectors for them; bitbucket may end up becoming unloved.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It's might hurt bitbucket more.

      > The org itself is in the process of standardising on gitlab on-prem; which means that we were going to move bitbucket into gitlab on prem; but now, we probably won't bother, we'll just move all the existing BB repos into github as private repos, since the opensource stuff will have to live somewhere...

      Assuming that your orga makes money, etc., moving on premises stuff ex-premises "because it's free" strikes me as a rather bizarre bit of decision making.

      For us the sweet spot is in using GitLab.org and taking weekly backups, which ensures that if/when GitLab goes nasty (gets taken over, etc.) we can spin up our own instance and hopefully keep ticking. In the meanwhile, we save the cost and maintenance hassle of running our instance. We could do with the free plan but we actually pay a subscription because why not? They have mouths to feed too. Small, uncomplicated, one-off code bases live in self-hosted Gitea.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020