@rysiek and yet most of us don't do it because it's costly and time-consuming 😜

For people who are actually hosting their own instance you have a fair point. But most have literally just switched from Github.com to Gitlab.com thinking they're sticking it to Microsoft by doing so.

Turns out... not so much 😂

@bobstechsite well, they actually are.

The amount of money MS will get from Gitlab hosting on Azure is inconsequential compared to the amount of money MS will now *lose* because GitHub is going to lose a shit-ton of value due to loss of developer trust.

We're talking orders of magnitude.

So. Not perfect. But still pretty effective -- just in a different way.

@rysiek I think it's questionable how many people will *actually* move as a proportion of the entire userbase.

There's a very angry and vocal "I hate Microsoft" minority that's heading for the hills. But most like me will probably shrug their shoulders and think "meh, so long as they don't screw up the platform or do stupid things with my data I'm fine with it"

@rysiek My moving to Github in the first place btw was largely motivated by the fact SourceForge has ruined their own platform by bombarding people with ads and (occasionally) malware.

Github offered a clean alternative experience and powerful browser-based tools.

Gitlab's big sell is... it's not owned by Microsoft. And you can maybe self-host it if you have the time and money to do so, and don't mind Amazon's dicey morality record.

@bobstechsite @rysiek
Don't give the bulk of humanity too much credit.

It's more like:
*shrug* what do my friends/co-workers recommend, or *shrug* what's everyone else using, or *shrug* (in some time from now) wait, Microsoft owns GitHub? Well, too far invested now to care.

We always perpetuate the bad behavior through complacency and convenience first.

@trevdev @rysiek true.

I guess I pick my battles. I'm no longer on Facebook or Twitter, and that profoundly sucks sometimes.

Moving between Git hosting platforms is an easier move by comparison. But I'd question how much you gain by doing so and am concerned by what's lost (i.e. Discoverability, a larger pool of potential contributors, etc)

The solution for now I guess is to probably mirror across both?

@bobstechsite @rysiek
Yeah, I wish I could offer the best solution, but I'm one of the dummies who thought GitLab was "better." Turns out they perpetuate bad behavior, too.

I could always "take the good with the bad" but I always thought that idea meant settling for the status quo, even when it sucks.

Fortunately I don't store any important code on either and I probably don't know what I'm missing in terms of opportunity.

@cult so you're saying it's more moral to host your projects on a platform that pays Microsoft rather than one that gets paid *by* Microsoft? 😜

@cult I should stress that I'm fine with people performing the switch as a kind of protest, but I was just amused by the delicious irony here.

You're right that they could just move hosting platforms. But I suspect they won't because doing it on that kind of scale is very costly and time-consuming. They probably prefer to spend the money developing Gitlab itself.

@bobstechsite Well, sorta yes, gitlab pays microsoft and unlike their other products, azure isn't a pure vendor-lock-in (unless you make it so) and they can go to another provider.

Ultimately the differences is that MS currently controls Github but MS does not control Gitlab, they merely host it. There is a lot less damage potential.

@cult given Microsoft could literally just flip a switch and kill Gitlab I'm not sure how far that argument holds up 😂

I've heard from one of the other responses though that they're potentially going to shift to Google Cloud at some point in the future.

@bobstechsite @cult
Apparently they already had plans for moving to Google Cloud before the github acquision.
Their blog post [0] links to a video [1] of an interview where they say sth like that.
[0]: https://about.gitlab.com/2018/06/05/gitlab-ultimate-and-gold-free-for-education-and-open-source/
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7Y-aQgr8Dk&feature=youtu.be&t=30m59s

@quad @cult @bobstechsite seems consistent with what they said in the interview. So yeah.

@quad @Wolf480pl @cult tbh the fact they were on Azure in the first place (and still are today) was news to me.

I think shifting to Google Cloud to maintain independence from what is now a competitor is a good thing.

I was just amused by the notion people were switching from Github to "stick it to Microsoft" only to discover the service they were using now has to pay Microsoft more money to host code on their servers.

@quad @bobstechsite @cult wait, what?
The users said that GitLab shouldn't use bare metal, and GitLab listened?

@bobstechsite @cult Wait, let me search that comic. You know the one.

@bobstechsite @cult
the comic: https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha

@grainloom @cult I knew that was coming sooner or later 😂

In one of the many other mentions I agreed that there is no shangrila right now and people have choose what the "least worst" option is for them.

Personally I don't see a reason to switch until Microsoft actually *does* something bad to ruin the platform.

I think that'll be a bigger driver for more than a voical minority to migrate than "It's owned by Microsoft. FEAR IT. FEAR IT!"

@ducatdusk my thoughts exactly.

The irony of the situation is kind of insane. When people realise their mistake they then try to justify supporting a platform that pays Microsoft rather than one that gets paid *by* Microsoft.

The only truly "moral" thing to do is self-host. But that of course costs time and money, and you'll probably be paying Amazon (yup, that *super moral* company) instead.

@bobstechsite I know I shouldn't laugh, and this sort of proves all the griping about the problem of big companies owning everything, but this is hella funny.

@vascorsd

a) do we know they are going to do any of those things for sure?

b) Is moving to a platform that has to pay Microsoft money for you to be on it more moral than hosting your code on a platform that just got paid *by* Microsoft?

You could go the self-hosting route, but you'll probably end up paying Amazon instead.

@bobstechsite

a) on principle I would never want anything to do with them. No matter how they changed. I won't play it as a gamble and just bet they don't fall on the bad ways they have proven over and over again they are willing to do.

b) yes. The liability and responsability is on the hands of other entity. Gitlab is liable and responsible for my data. Ms is just a service contractor under differr t set of requirements and responsibilities.

@Ninjatrappeur @bobstechsite

Interesting.

Is there a better alternative right now, or is GitLab a legitimate "least worst" option?

@switchingsocial @Ninjatrappeur Gogs perhaps? https://github.com/gogs/gogs
https://gogs.io/

Although I'm not sure if there's a free hosted version just anyone can use in the same way

@Ninjatrappeur @switchingsocial the other issue is that (for now) "Gitpub" is just an idea to extend ActivityPub, not an implementable standard or code people can work with.

It would see that there is no Shangrila here. People have to choose which option is the "least worst" for them.

@rixx I found out about it about half an hour ago, so it's quite possible they've made alternative hosting plans.

It does make the situation less ironic. Although I'd argue Google probably isn't all that more of a "moral" option than Amazon tbqh. It's a conundrum...

@bobstechsite @rixx maybe it'll at least have better IO than Azure, so that restoring a backup doesn't take 2 days.

@bobstechsite @rixx ...and where else do you suppose they'd host? Amazon's cloud? Surely that's no more palatable.

@AskChip they have a free trial I think.

Basically what I'm saying is that Gitlab.com isn't independent from Microsoft's influence. They could literally pull the plug on it because it's hosted on their servers.

In practise that would probably never happen, and I hear tell they might eventually move to Google Cloud instead.

I just thought the irony was amusing. "We're sticking it to Microsoft by making another project pay them more money to host our code!"

@bob for now, neither does Microsoft's ownership of Github.

If they start screwing up the platform or do bad things with my data I'll switch. But for now everyone's concerned about what *might* happen.

(Admittedly I'm a little embittered because in the late '00s I got excited about Mono, then became distraught when the community went "Ah, but Microsoft *might theoretically* sue everyone for patent infringement, so let's write slightly worse replacements for no good reason!)

@bob an example of that which still annoys me to this day is Evolution v Thunderbird.

The former is (imho) a much better drop-in replacement for Outlook, but the latter gets bundled by default with mainstream Linux distros because... Mono! 🤦‍♂️

(Semi-related rant over)

@bobstechsite
I'll just chime in for #thunderbird. #evolution has absolutely zero support for #rtl languages (a known issue for years that no developer wants to touch). Thunderbird is far from perfect, but it has the needed plugins to support RTL. As one of the third of the world who need this feature for a program to be usable I stand behind the choice of TB.
@bob

@bobstechsite @bob
That's also the case with #geary, another popular mail client that's bundled with #elementaryos if memory serves. Zero #rtl languages support.

@eladhen @bob I had no idea!

Part of me thinks if it hadn't fallen out of favour it would've been implemented by now. But I couldn't say that for certain. Good on the Thunderbird project for making that happen.

@bobstechsite
I'd love to have more #rtl supporting mail clients. The support in thunderbird is a bit of a hack, based on a plugin by a single developer for something that should be a core component...
@bob

@bob it'll make me sad if they go in that direction. One would hope they'd learned from Codeplex's failure that it's a bad plan.

As for the GNU/Linux hate, it's kind of understandable I guess given the hate they ended up receiving themselves.

I guess it all worked out in the end, given Microsoft ended up open sourcing .NET core. Although much like Mono it relies on a "patent promise" on a webpage rather than a free perpetual patent license (i.e. like OpenJDK)

@Toromino you'll notice you said "not That hard".

Self-hosting can be time-consuming and costly, as well as having a potentially high barrier to entry.

I guess the hope would be that a federated alternative emerges. But for now "GitPub" is still on the drawing board.