Well, what else can we say? Enjoy your unilateral price increases or features shoved down the throat (CoPilot anyone?), with exactly 0 extra money in your pocket. Unless you are a C-level, of course.

Are you based in Europe? Gitlab has a much stronger presence there. In the US Gitlab adoption is much weaker in my experience.

I’ve setup self-hosted gitlab configs for multiple projects and it works fine.

I'm a contractor so have worked on a lot of different projects for different companies, big and small and also early startups.

This is far from truth imo. It is very possible to only use (F)OSS. Github, AWS, Azure, Vercel are not at all more pleasant or easier to work with than on-prem Gitlab/gitea/codeberg/jenkins/k8s/kibana/prometheus/grafana.

I could spend an hour and have a full setup done on physical or VPS to have 1) remote git hosting 2) pipelines running on changes 3) pipelines publishing images or some artifacts 4) automated deployment for these images/artifacts

I'm struggling to see what am I missing. What is worthwhile that Github offers? It is popular and easy to set up org+repos, but that seems it. A few years ago I was working on Azure Devops with the azure pipeline and that was the worst developer experience I've ever had. AFAIK Github actions uses the same syntax and works the same way, at least it was at that time.

At work we've started switching to codeberg (which uses forgejo) and honestly it's a breath of fresh air compared to GitHub. It's blazing fast compared to GitHub and has feature parity with our needs.

Funny how Microsoft products tend to instill blindness over time; refocusing on git hooks (and not the UI) can offer some perspective.

Forge, Gitea, and git itself contains a cgi script with quite a bit of functionality. And of course, the way it is supposed to work, git-over-ssh, as in give committers Linux shell accounts on a shared machine, with the CGI script running for pretty pictures (Remember CGI? You know, "cloud functions" before such a thing existed)

Huh, I should make an Apache plugin that launches docker exported containers uploaded into a directory.

on the other hand, a better user experience is something open source projects can aspire towards as a pure goal, with no perverse incentives pulling them the other way. a lot of the recent github changes have degraded the user experience because that was overall more profitable for the company.

Github Actions is a cobbled together mess. It is mainly based on Azure DevOps Pipelines and still has some glaring bugs and wildly inefficient parts.

If it works for you, great. But it is far from being good.

We use Gitlab for CI/CD and tbh it is amazing. Simple, predictable, debuggable.

Versioning sucks (the references are mutable), debugging sucks, you cant run them locally.

I think I agree with you that:

- everything else is trash.

- Github Actions changed the landscape.

- They're composable.

And I still hate github actions! Aside from anything else, they have one major flaw, which is there is no good development/test loop for writing them.

If you write most of your CICD in some kind of script, then you can run it locally, and do some basic checks around environment etc before deploying.

If you write most of your CICD in github actions or any alternative, you will be doomed to push 100 commits with messages like "maybe be?", "hmmm. . ." before eventually squashing them all down when it turns out several hours later that you mispelt an environment variable.

Thumbs up on Concourse CI: I like seeing all my builds at once on any easy-to-read dashboard. That’s why we switched from GitHub actions: the dashboard.

This thread is largely commentary on the technical aspects of GitHub Actions.

The fact the business gives away free compute is irrelevant and more a discussion of their marketing budget.

Something like Gerrit. Instead of carefully crafting a logical series of patches that are all well documented with commit messages, PRs are just garbage filled diff soup of "fix typo" commits. I hate it. It's hard to review and seems to be based on putting the least amount of effort into proposing changes to the code. See https://gist.github.com/thoughtpolice/9c45287550a56b2047c631...

What ever happened to Hudson/Jenkins? That was the full featured CI/CD solution before github actions.

Azure DevOps is the gold standard for Pipelines.

git

I think you can take it too far and spend a lot of time worrying about nickel and dimes for someone who doesn't care... github is unlikely to eat a business and if it does you made some bad choices.

Otherwise you make the call, maybe the company changes their business practices for the worse, maybe they don't ... it's not like you can ever be sure about that.

No ethical consumption under capitalism. My phone has minerals in it mined under slave-like conditions.

I'm all for everyone going full Libra - we do it at my co-op - but it makes sense to me that venture funded companies would "play the game" and light investor money on fire because, first, who gives a shit, and second, the investors want you to do that anyway so they can find out as fast as possible if you're a unicorn.

At my co-op, I spend hours writing future proof code and integrating FOSS solutions that I hope will serve us forever. When I'm at a startup, I'm looking for the fastest, maybe cheapest solution. YC gave us 200k in AWS credit? Guess we're on AWS. Another company in the cohort is some LLM IDE ala cursor and gave us a year free? Sure, burn tokens their investors are paying for, more agents for me. Vercel offers us a year of free hosting? Great, I hate nextjs but Claude loves it so fuck it, we deploy a nextjs app on vercel and lock ourselves deep into that ecosystem. Our product may not look like this at all in a year so I may be rewriting it in Vue or whatever when the vercel bills start coming in. Doesn't matter.

Same here, my commit history chart makes people think I suddenly died on October 21, 2023, going from all green to all white.

Bitbucket also implemented 2FA, but it's 100% optional, so I'm sticking with that for the moment.

I’d like to introduce you to Oracle and many software companies pre-SaaS that were charging per core.

If I recall correctly, Atlassian’s CI product also charged you for parallel jobs back in the day. And businesses were paying it because they felt it gave them value for money.

Even purely from an altruist perspective I’d argue scenario 2 makes more sense as the resulting money can be used to fund a lot more open-source contributions.

There's value in enforcing checks on the server side to avoid people accidentally/maliciously merging code that doesn't pass said checks. Checks can be linters, security scanners, etc.

While I agree with the spirit of your statement "people are afraid to run their own software", I feel like this assumes that people are the ones choosing the software they run. I wish my teams could run more things ourselves, but are told no by our systems and infrastructure staff.

Any self hosted service in an enterprise means that you're dealing with all the headaches that come with that including: backups, user/role creation and mapping maintenance, infrastructure scaling needs, OTEL or other monitoring, etc.

It's an easier decision for VPs to pay GitHub anything less than the man hours required to execute the above tasks because it's a "not our problem" fee.

GitLab actually implemented Actions first back in the day (called CI/CD). I remember GitHub was following their lead.

Gitea scales really badly with large repos in my experience. Gitlab works a lot better mostly because you can just throw more hardware at it. This is with a pretty large git repo and a lot of daily commits.