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

GitHub Alternatives

tutswiki.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 193 posts

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#131

Post by richardwhiuk »

chapati23 wrote: post #15

Honest question: Besides more traction among the open source community, where do you feel GitHub is stronger than GitLab? I’m not affiliated with GitLab, however a little biased because we’re using GitLab instead of GitHub at our company. Feature-wise, It seems to me that GitLab is running circles around GitHub. Curious about other opinions.

GitLab's UI is in every way a travesty compared to GitHub's.

GitLab feels like using GitHub's UI from about 3 years ago. Here's a list of things missing, just to name a few:

    > consolidated reviews
    > multiple assigned people
    > reasonable diffs when merging complicated changes, ability to review code since it was last reviewed
    > easy to create merge requests, and plenty of context sensitive stuff
    > can generate comparisons of code online without creating a merge request
There's so many small UI/UX pain points

Take https://gitlab.com/coldnight/ci-test (which was the trending repo when I visited....):

    > The navigation is spread across:
      > The very top
      > The left hand side
      > An inline breadcrumbs below that
      > A bar in the middle of the screen
      > A bar below that
    > History button duplicates Commits button.
    > About 30% of the top of the UI is just useless filler - so the content on the page (the tree and the README - which is probably want I want when I visit a project) also consists of a small box in the bottom of the scren.
Compare https://github.com/fivethirtyeight/data (which is the top trending repo on Explore on GitHub!):

    > Much more consistent navigation - series of contextual bars which move down - so each page is more consistent

    > Much more of the screen is available for the tree / README

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#132

Post by bogomipz »

natmaster wrote: post #32
craftyguy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because now github is owned by a company that was formerly very hostile to open source software, and this company is magically not.

Steve Ballmer is no longer CEO. Companies are run by people - they are not people.

Do you believe that on Mr Ballmer's last day he put the company culture into a box along with some desk plants and framed photos and walked out of the building with it?

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#133

Post by megablast »

captaincrowbar wrote: post #130
exrook wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd guess that this is more due to the popularity of GitHub among potential contributiors to these projects. I've seen it mentioned many times here on HN that a potential contributor may not want to put in the effort to create an account on another VCS provider or send a patch to a mailing list, whereas submitting a pull request on GitHub is a much less involved process for them, given that they likely already have a…

"I'd guess that this is more due to the popularity of GitHub among potential contributiors to these projects." Doesn't that support bmsleight's point? If Github is more popular than NotGithub, even among the developers of NotGithub, that doesn't exactly inspire confidence in NotGithub.

No, it is about making a compromise because you live in the real world.

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#134

Post by major505 »

Lets be honest.... people just like to shit on microsoft. i was against open source most a decade ago.

Now they understand that they need open source alternatives to keep alive.

Azure has suport to various popular open source techs, they keep a lot of repositories in github, and even open sourced .net.

And, you complain about microsoft buying Github? Imagine if Oracle had done the same.

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#135

Post by ggg9990 »

alkonaut wrote: post #59

I’m only half joking when I say VSTS is a pretty strong contender in the code+issues space, especially if you need more complex features for CI/CD. For obvious reasons it’s not a good option if you are switching from Github out of fear of Microsoft (which is presumably the reason it’s not listed in the article).

The site is so fucking slow though.

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#136

Post by wolco »

itomato wrote: post #128
wolco wrote: post #2

I'm surprised by the lack of choices that are free non-self hosted

Genuinely curious what features of a GitLab or GitHub equivalent you would require in a self-hosted scenario that 'git' doesn't provide?

I would expect other cloud providers to offer the same or more but include ads or I would have expected 10 subpar offerings but with a free price tag.

I'm would have expected more competition.

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#137

Post by wolco »

geodel wrote: post #14
wolco wrote: post #2

I'm surprised by the lack of choices that are free non-self hosted

Why non-self hosted is supposed to be free for non open source projects?

It doesn't have to be but I'm a little shocked no one is taking that end of the business.

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#138

Post by exrook »

captaincrowbar wrote: post #130
exrook wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd guess that this is more due to the popularity of GitHub among potential contributiors to these projects. I've seen it mentioned many times here on HN that a potential contributor may not want to put in the effort to create an account on another VCS provider or send a patch to a mailing list, whereas submitting a pull request on GitHub is a much less involved process for them, given that they likely already have a…

"I'd guess that this is more due to the popularity of GitHub among potential contributiors to these projects." Doesn't that support bmsleight's point? If Github is more popular than NotGithub, even among the developers of NotGithub, that doesn't exactly inspire confidence in NotGithub.

Oh, it definitely could be considered as evidence that Github is a better platform for code hosting than gitea, gogs, etc. However I think that the difference is popularity is far more likely to be caused by network effects around Github as well as Github's comparative age.

There are also other factors impacting a users's decision to choose one hosting platform/software over another unrelated to the functionality of the software, such as code licensing and self hosting capability.

In summary, popularity certainly can be an indicator of whether or not a software or service is worth using, but it's not a direct measure of the quality or robustness or whatever other factors you may care about when making a decision.

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#139

Post by manigandham »

alkonaut wrote: post #81
manigandham wrote: post #73

For all the complaints about Microsoft, I've yet to hear what they could do that would be so bad? Change the homepage to actually be useful? Improve the search? Give away free private repos?

Kill Atom was the most reasonable fear I heard. And I can’t see how that wouldn’t be a well founded fear. If I was Microsoft I wouldn’t want to keep paying devs to make two so similar products (atom, code). They are much more similar than e.g code/vs or github/vsts. But even so: I agree the fear that the product will be worse in a few feels completely irrational. What I can agree with is that it’s unfortunate that it…

But what does neutrality even mean? It's the git protocol, what is there to make non-neutral?

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#140

Post by nerdponx »

captaincrowbar wrote: post #130
exrook wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd guess that this is more due to the popularity of GitHub among potential contributiors to these projects. I've seen it mentioned many times here on HN that a potential contributor may not want to put in the effort to create an account on another VCS provider or send a patch to a mailing list, whereas submitting a pull request on GitHub is a much less involved process for them, given that they likely already have a…

"I'd guess that this is more due to the popularity of GitHub among potential contributiors to these projects." Doesn't that support bmsleight's point? If Github is more popular than NotGithub, even among the developers of NotGithub, that doesn't exactly inspire confidence in NotGithub.

This isn't a social network. There's more to a source code hosting platform than popularity.
Post reply on HN