We don't! A big mission is to spread awareness that #GitHub is not the gold standard for code development. Still, many platforms require either GitHub or GitLab accounts (e.g. for proof of owning a piece of code // being maintainer of something). We think this is not fair, you should be free to choose your place to develop code!
Still, we see many people complain about the GitLab.com service being behind #Cloudflare, taking intransparent decisions, and it's still a commercial product after all.
We won't give a statement if we consider them better than GitHub or not, but we'll be working hard to offer a viable alternative to everyone who wants to avoid both of them for whatever reason.
@codeberg yes, I understand all of this.
But if you're talking about gitlab.com, why not be clear about it and say "gitlab.com", instead of effectively painting any and all Gitlab instances (like the amazing 0xacab.org, for example) with the same broad brush?
@rysiek Where did we paint any GitLab instance by saying that it should not be required to use them?
I'll happily paint us with the same brush: No one should be forced to use Codeberg, it's perfectly fine to use anything you like. You can also send your patches via E-Mail or use another VCS.
Diversity matters. Freedom matters. We're aiming at offering freedome, not at creating another trap.
@codeberg and that is perfectly fair. But none of the 3 different Gitlab instances I managed at one time or another is behind CloudFlare.
Hence me asking for a clear distinction between Gitlab and gitlab.com.
@rysiek We'll try to be more sensible here in the future, but still, using the term "GitLab" can still be considered the correct term for their hosted service and is commonly used - also as Hashtag.
We'll try to be more clear in the future, but still, we don't like being called out for this.
@codeberg "correct", sure, but if someone said "No one should be forced to use GitHub or Codeberg" you'd probably feel a bit awkward and a bit bad about it (even though technically it's also correct), for the same reasons why I felt somewhat meh about lumping Github and Gitlab.
Anyway, thanks for engaging and considering. I appreciate it.
And thanks for doing what you do. The more amazing forges, the better!
@codeberg I agree! But I should be allowed to choose a place to develop code even if I use Gitlab, by self-hosting it.
So, by conflating Gitlab with gitlab.com in the context of this (important!) issue, you're making the conversation more muddy.
If instead that distinction was made, it would potentially be *easier* to convince the other platforms: "guys, you're *already* supporting gitlab.com, why not self-hosted Gitlab instances? and if that, why not other forges?"
@rysiek The GitLab team offers the hosted service under the same name as their product, so by calling their name, we don't do anything wrong. Gitlab.com is a domain name, their hosted service is still called "GitLab", while the Free Software tool is commonly called "GitLab CE".
Also, the whole point was: No one should be forced to use GitLab. There should also no one be required to use the self-hosted GitLab CE, for that matter, everyone should be free to choose their own software forge IMHO.
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!