Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

akr.am

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 162 posts

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#131

Post by Improvotter »

benatkin wrote: post #110

Here's how you get the instructions to install the open source version of GitLab on Ubuntu: - Google "install gitlab ubuntu" - Click the first link - Choose Ubuntu - Notice that it says ee in the command and think, oh, that's enterprise edition, I want the open source edition: sudo EXTERNAL_URL=" http://gitlab.example.com" apt-get install gitlab-ee - Look around and finally find the link "CE or EE" - Read "If you're…

This is because the Enterprise Edition includes the Community Edition. If you don't have a license, it'll use the EE as the CE version. This only makes it easier for new people to get started. It also has the benefit that if you want to switch, you don't have to set the entire thing back up.

Info: https://about.gitlab.com/installation/ce-or-ee/?distro=ubunt...

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#132

Post by syshum »

pythonaut_16 wrote: post #74
syshum wrote: post #4

And how much of GitHub is Open???

More than you'd expect, as they've open sourced and contributed to a number of open source projects based on their development of Github.com

Github is a perfect match for MS, both of them are hostile to the idea of Free Software

They open source tools for devs, things like Library's, Frameworks, IDE's etc. Never end products.

They oppose the ethics of Free Software, Open source for them is a way to get free labor

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#133

Post by [deleted] »

ktpsns wrote: post #106
amingilani wrote: post #77

There's honestly nothing new here. GitLab calls itself open core because only the Community Edition (CE) is open-source and the Enterprise Edition is source-available. Anyone, after five minutes of looking at GitLab.com, knows this. They aren't hiding it and it's already incredibly public. They've even publicly talk about their 100+ user-relevant rule for features that decides what CE doesn't get [1] I don't understa…

Furthermore, Gitlab has a brilliant documentation which makes very clear which features are available in which version of the program. This distinction goes even into the documentation of the (JSON) API. What is advertised as open source is really open source, you can browse it yourself. Find it at https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce -- btw, this is a ~3GB repository, afaik you won't be able to host such a large…

[deleted]

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#134

Post by ljm »

Improvotter wrote: post #131
benatkin wrote: post #110

Here's how you get the instructions to install the open source version of GitLab on Ubuntu: - Google "install gitlab ubuntu" - Click the first link - Choose Ubuntu - Notice that it says ee in the command and think, oh, that's enterprise edition, I want the open source edition: sudo EXTERNAL_URL=" http://gitlab.example.com" apt-get install gitlab-ee - Look around and finally find the link "CE or EE" - Read "If you're…

This is because the Enterprise Edition includes the Community Edition. If you don't have a license, it'll use the EE as the CE version. This only makes it easier for new people to get started. It also has the benefit that if you want to switch, you don't have to set the entire thing back up. Info: https://about.gitlab.com/installation/ce-or-ee/?distro=ubunt...

Why call it Enterprise Edition or EE everywhere when you have to write documentation about the reason for that naming and the intricacies around the licensing? And then explain that the unlicensed EE is actually CE which is just the MIT licensed code and the other stuff is not under that license? No one's going to expect that, they're going to think they're on a trial.

It sounds like a shady marketing ploy considering you could provide `sudo apt install gitlab-ce` in addition to `sudo apt install gitlab-ee` (or even just have `sudo apt install gitlab`). This isn't making it easier, it's just shifting the burden onto the user and hoping they'll pay up because they got a nerfed 'enterprise' install.

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#135

Post by brightball »

brianwawok wrote: post #93
luka-birsa wrote: post #88

I'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,…

We went Gitlab to Bitbucket + Jira. Quite a bit more power, for less money (even after paying for cloud testers).

I’ve been wondering why Bitbucket just gets ignored with all the Github news. I get that Gitlab is the new hotness but they’ve been offering free private repos before gitlab was even a thing.

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#136

Post by rlkf »

wolfgke wrote: post #130
ajsalminen wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because BitKeeper definitely was proprietary back when the Linux kernel was using it even if it got open sourced later... Your comment seemed to be suggesting otherwise.

> Probably because BitKeeper definitely was proprietary back when the Linux kernel was using it even if it got open sourced later... Your comment seemed to be suggesting otherwise. I specially looked in the dictionary what the translation of "mittlerweile" [de] means in English ("by that time"). Additionally I did not write "BitKeeper was by that time open source under Apache 2.0 License", but "BitKeeper is by that t…

People probably mistook "by that time" as "at that time" instead of "since", which was what you meant. Also, use "has been" instead of "is", as the open-sourcing happened sometime in the past (although it is in the state of open-source now).

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#137

Post by sullyj3 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #122
amingilani wrote: post #77

There's honestly nothing new here. GitLab calls itself open core because only the Community Edition (CE) is open-source and the Enterprise Edition is source-available. Anyone, after five minutes of looking at GitLab.com, knows this. They aren't hiding it and it's already incredibly public. They've even publicly talk about their 100+ user-relevant rule for features that decides what CE doesn't get [1] I don't understa…

> I don't understand what compelled the author to write this but GitLab CE really is open-source. To counter all the comments throughout today claiming that GitLab is the bastion of Open Source. There's nothing wrong with GitLab or their "open core" business model, but a lot of posters today surrounding the GitHub acquisition have been misstating GitLab's OSS credentials. GitLab did nothing wrong. But facts something…

I agree, and I think this is a valid reason. However, I think the author could have been more explicit about this (assuming that this in fact the author's reason for writing the post, and not a steelman)

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#138

Post by naikrovek »

theyinwhy wrote: post #129
geostyx wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maintaining a GitLab server takes time.

This is just utterly wrong. yum upgrade Done. No problems for years now. Not a single one.

Are you using it? I've yet to come across anyone hosting their own gitlab instance that has not had trouble of some sort.

Re: GitLab Isn’t Really Open-Source

#140

Post by mmt »

wolfgke wrote: post #130
ajsalminen wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because BitKeeper definitely was proprietary back when the Linux kernel was using it even if it got open sourced later... Your comment seemed to be suggesting otherwise.

> Probably because BitKeeper definitely was proprietary back when the Linux kernel was using it even if it got open sourced later... Your comment seemed to be suggesting otherwise. I specially looked in the dictionary what the translation of "mittlerweile" [de] means in English ("by that time"). Additionally I did not write "BitKeeper was by that time open source under Apache 2.0 License", but "BitKeeper is by that t…

I would suggest that needing to defend a particular use of grammar on a discussion site is a bit like needing to explain a joke. It means your original message simply wasn't effective.

Regardless, you haven't explained what your actual point was. BitKeeper switching to open source after Linus's initial decision to use it doesn't refute the original commenter's point.

Post reply on HN