I look forward to the next panic that sends folks fleeing back to sourceforge.
GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source
81–90 of 162 posts
Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because most of the open source world is more than happy to use that closed-source service.
Including Linux, which originally used the proprietary BitKeeper VCS system before Torvalds wrote git.
I don't think we can compare the state of OSS then to now.
Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the parent's defense, the two features listed aren't really what I think of when I think of "enterprise" features. I think more of things like SAML and Active Directory integration, auditing, etc.
Sure, but that's essentially a branding criticism (labeling them "enterprise" features) rather than a criticism of the "open core" model.
My personal take on the open core model is that I'm generally in favour with it, so long as the paid features are significant and make sense to be paid features. Like, the two features the parent are asking for could be added by an open-source contributor in an afternoon. Removing them from the CE edition and only including them in the paid version just feels like picking and choosing things to include or not include.
An open core model done well is great. This doesn't seem to be an instance of that :)
Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source
#84Even if every last byte of Gitlab and the bits behind it aren't OSS, it is lightyears ahead of GitHub in terms of source availability. And while I suspect the gap will only grow, I'd love for Microsoft to make me wrong.
Give me service availability over "source availability" any day. The gitlab paas product has shocking performance and uptime.
Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source
#85> GitLab has two version of its software - GitLab Community Edition, the open-source version, and GitLab Enterprise Edition. I think the context is the comparison with Github. So where is the Github open source community edition with MIT licensing? > The question then is - what chunk of GitLab will be considered “core” in the future? None of the additional enterprise features seem to be core features so it's just one…
Believe the posters asking how we know that they won't shrink the feature set in the future in comparison to the existing codebase by introducing updates or quality-of-life improvements in the Enterprise version and not in the open version
Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source
#86Projects that follow the "open core" model bother me when they gate useful features behind their paid version like Gitlab does. My organization would benefit from the "Rebase merge requests before merge" and "Use fast-forward merges when possible" features quite a bit, and we are an in educational environment with lots of volunteers so using the Enterprise edition isn't viable at all. These features aren't technicall…
we'd have to carry our own internal fork of Gitlab So you have the choice between buying Gitlab or coding yourself. You would prefer it to be free and without hassle, but lack to see everything has a cost.
That's not OP's main point. It's that even if they implement it (as in a clean room), there is no chance of it being merged upstream. Now, if the OP implements some entirely different feature not related to gitlab's pricing, it can be merged upstream in the CE. This is in contrast to conventional open source projects.
Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because most of the open source world is more than happy to use that closed-source service.
Including Linux, which originally used the proprietary BitKeeper VCS system before Torvalds wrote git.
It was a huge controversy back in the day, with prominent kernel devs being very vocally against BitKeeper.
From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitKeeper):
"The decision made in 2002 to use BitKeeper for Linux kernel development was a controversial one. Some, including GNU Project founder Richard Stallman, expressed concern about proprietary tools being used on a flagship free project. While project leader Linus Torvalds and other core developers adopted BitKeeper, several key developers (including Linux veteran Alan Cox) refused to do so, citing the BitMover license, and voicing concern that the project was ceding some control to a proprietary developer."
Not that it matters to anyone, but I do remember I found it shocking news :)
Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source
#88I've been a user of gitlab for 4yrs+. Its a great tool and a nice alternative to github for all us crazy "i want to have code on-prem" folks.
That being said gitlab ce and its relationship to ee is more and more complicated. What started out at missing select features is now full out armaggedon of lacking features. See latest releases and youll see that all the cool stuff is comming out only to ee.
Whats even worse, the pricing is insane - some nice features are in the extreme tier that costs insane ammounts od money.
There was a time when we considered dropping all other tools and moving to gitlab. Now were actually migrating to jira for issue tracking. We're considering jenkins as alternative to gitlab ci. And if we see the rift growing too large, we'll move to phabricator (kindof sad we didnt go that direction 4yrs back).
Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
I strongly disagree. GitLab is open core because I can run and use the software in a meaningful way under open source licenses. MacOs is substantially different because I cannot take their open source kernel and run a functioning version of MacOs
Well, you used to be able to do that with macOS, but I think they stopped that from happening in the last few years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)#Open... Gitlab may one day also decide that their core is too large and too useful to let everyone play with it too. Also, you're not strongly disagreeing with me. I said the same thing, the only difference is that you can get most (but not all) o…
Google took the same approach with Android, releasing non-OSS versions of their OSS apps, and not updating the OSS ones anymore.
Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Open source" is an incredibly ambiguous term. Some people use it to mean the literal "the source is open to the world." Some people use it to mean the Open Source Definition from the Open Source Initiative https://opensource.org/osd , which is a very small set of modifications of the Debian Free Software Guidelines https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines to make them not talk about Debian or use the term "…
> Personally, I think using "open source" to mean "the source is open to the public" is as misguided as using "free software" to mean "the software is free of charge," but in practice there's a lot more ambiguity in the former, not the latter. I would disagree. Both the terms "open source" and "free software" existed prior to the open-source software movement. Either way, you don't get to co-opt the plain English mea…
I disagree with your disagreement.
That's precisely how language works: we co-opt words and change their meaning all the time; this happens all the time with software, engineering and physics. Open source has come to mean something in the software development world (and it arguably never meant "the source is open to the public but they must pay for its use", so it's not even an actual subversion). Some companies now might be trying to redefine the term, and it's up to us -- the programming community -- to stop them by rejecting this redefinition.