> fits so much better in "regular" company/organization projects

How so? I used both at work and they're functionally the same.

What virtue battle?

For one that deal hasn't closed and secondly not sure what the connection is between Roku leaving Github and FOX. Please expand on relevance.

it seems like all the media companies are being bought up by a select few people

does not portend good things for the future

“virtue battle”! like it

Would also like a write-up. People assume it's just because of GitHub outages, but GitHub is slightly worse in every aspect, so for big projects and organisations it compounds to being quite messy to manage and operate.

GitLab is thought-out to support larger groups with more complex pipelines, and while it's got it's own set of quirks, it doesn't begin to compare, GitHub in contrast seems like a toy forge for toy projects.

why? like having a dozen outages in the last couple months isn't a good enough reason why?

Roku uses Gitlab internally so could just be a standardization thing.

[delayed]

Yes, I use Dagger, it's much more than building containers

- Container based workflows are the same in CI and locally (you can run containers too), they become one-liners

- Remote caching out of the box without extra steps

- Multiple language SDKs, unlocks the DAG in BuildKit and containers, real reuse

- Obfuscates secrets from your logs and agents. I've built an agent environment on Dagger, which also includes forking and time travel)

tl;dr - Dagger gives you SDK access to BuildKit and container based DAGs for building or anything else.

v1-beta just released yesterday: https://dagger.io/blog/dagger-10-beta/

---

edit: they are replacing BuildKit (for good reasons) and that is already out https://dagger.io/changelog/theseus/

A major software project is changing from one major software tool to another major software tool. How is it not important? Or at least notable for HN?

Downtime aside, what do prefer about GitLab?

I moved my projects over to GitLab about a year ago.

GitLab's model is different - at least it was when I moved over to it. They charged for public repositories and gave you a free private ones as a sampler for trying out the platform. That approach is far less prone to getting overrun by millions of slopositories.

GitLab never tried to be the social media of software development. Theirs is a much simpler, classical model - one of the reasons I switched to them: you pay them money, they provide you services for that money.

It already is. (source: we use it as our primary forge)

> GitLab will eventually just get overran with 24/7 agents spewing from their AI Slop Cannons

That's fine. GitLab offers self-hosted solutions where companies run the service in their own infrastructure and limit who has access to it. The same cannot be said by GitHub, though.

Do you have some time?

Fixed https://gitlab.com/rokudev/dev-doc/-/merge_requests/6

> I always found it weird that people flocked to github.

Same reason we ended up with git. Their predecessors were significantly worse, and then they had enough momentum to keep going.

> I always found (...)

You broadcasted your negative feedback but it seems you had no positive remarks to give. If you feel everything is so bad, would you mind sharing what tolerable alternatives are there to GitHub and GitLab?

Well you're a developer. Why don't you make something better instead of complaining?

    > disguised as an open source project

Gitlab CE is open-source. There exist versions of Gitlab with features that require payment. This does not mean that Gitlab (the product) is not open-source; it means that Gitlab (the company) has a core product which is open-source, and then sustains its development through the sale of licenses to product tiers beyond that.

This logic baffles me. This would mean no one gets any work done and we go in a perennial cycle of victimhood

Thanks for a good laugh, FOSS in 2026 is nothing without the money of big corporations, including Microsoft.

Everyone spent years talking against GPL, business friendly licenses like MIT and Apache were the way of the future, not viral and co.

Now we are here, most projects have their key contributors working at corporations like Microsoft, or gladly getting their acquisition money to pay the VCs, embrace your business friendly licenses.

I'm hosting Forgejo for my homelab and couldn't be happier. I have everything running in containers with dind for CI/CD. Most of my workflows just worked with minimal changes. YMMV and this is far from an enterprises' needs but it's working great so far for my needs.

>Good. I want everyone to do this

Every other free service would die nearly instantly, so maybe only want useful things to move to other services.

>I am even considering hosting my own GIT server myself.

It's mostly a good idea.... but, with the current security apocalypse we seem to be under making sure your own shit doesn't get pwned is a full time job. The level of security hostility on the internet recently has reached numbers I've never seen before. RCE's dropping about every day, more targeted scans than I've ever seen in my life, swarms of AI bots breaking into services.

As an idea, do you think an enterprise only Git host would work.

Say annual contracts start at 100k minimum and everyone gets a dedicated support engineer.

You get your own rack. None of this degraded shared capability nonsense.

Does that seem like a solid business ?

Github desktop is such a hot mess that I instead choose to continue to suffer with SourceTree. Sourcetree annoys me for reasons I still cannot articulate after a decade, but it at least tends to actually work without being too intrusive as far as updating, doesn't randomly derp out on credentials, and is super handy when trying to visualize janky branch patterns of dev teams.

Because of unreviewed AI code at GitHub services?