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

151–160 of 193 posts

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#151

Post by petre »

juliusmusseau wrote: post #102
macinjosh wrote: post #80

I am a happy gitlab.com user. However, with all of this week's news I decided to see what it would take to run my own GitLab instance. I was surprised to find that on Digital Ocean and AWS Lightsail the one-click GitLab installs required an instance that costs ~$40 per month just for me, one user. Any cheaper/smaller instances were to anemic to run GitLab at all. Seems like there are some performance issues to deal w…

Bitbucket On-Prem (aka Bitbucket Server) is pure Java + direct git invocations, so runs very nicely on modest hardware. Can get by on 1GB RAM! (But more recommended if you have more than 10 users).

Doesn't it require Tomcat, Apache, Postgres/MySQL? I've recently installed Jira Core and Confluece for a client and they hardly seem lightweight web apps.

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#152

Post by reificator »

hjek wrote: post #116
bmsleight_ wrote: post #92

I looked at lot of these alternatives, not many are eating their own dog food. Does not inspire me with confidence. * https://gitea.io/en-US/ The code for gitea is on Github. https://github.com/go-gitea/ * http://gitprep.yukikimoto.com/ The code for gitprep is on Github https://github.com/yuki-kimoto/gitprep * https://gogs.io/ Guess what ..... https://github.com/gogs/gogs

I guess Gogs have an excuse, as they had to host the project somewhere , and perhaps they haven't started dog fooding because of migration difficulties, e.g. the issue tracker. But I wonder what's the excuse for Gitea as they're a pretty recent Gogs fork? They're both pretty amazing though: Self-contained binaries and less than 5 minutes setup time, so totally suitable for ad-hoc deployment.

Github also does not cost time and money to use for open source projects.

I've used a few GoGS servers, but none of them were public. Hosting a public competitor to Github is a different set of skills to developing a self-hosted VCS server.

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#153

Post by petre »

kingosticks wrote: post #53
craftyguy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what makes you think 1) company culture is no longer a thing and 2) that microsoft won't swing back towards being openly hostile or worse, 'secretly hostile' towards open source software when someone else is at the healm? I hope time will prove me wrong, but this acquisition is literally the 'embrace' phase of E3. Next comes the 'extend'.

Why would they acquire github just to turn on it and run it into the ground? You can do that if your users are locked-in or maybe you have a competing service but neither are the case here; there are numerous alternatives and it's pretty easy to switch, as we are already seeing. If they have anything but good intentions this would be just a giant waste of time/money.

They did it with Skype. They don't have good but rather business minded intentions or how to make money from a product. This can change the product for the worse or at least for another audience (business users).

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#154

Post by alkonaut »

manigandham wrote: post #139
alkonaut wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not influenced by any of the major software giants. That’s about it.

Github is very little about git and mostly about the hub. The inertia is in the issue tracker, forks/stars/...

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#155

Post by hawski »

bmsleight_ wrote: post #92

I looked at lot of these alternatives, not many are eating their own dog food. Does not inspire me with confidence. * https://gitea.io/en-US/ The code for gitea is on Github. https://github.com/go-gitea/ * http://gitprep.yukikimoto.com/ The code for gitprep is on Github https://github.com/yuki-kimoto/gitprep * https://gogs.io/ Guess what ..... https://github.com/gogs/gogs

https://notabug.org/ does eat its own Gogs fork^W^W dog food [0].

[0] https://notabug.org/hp/gogs/

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#156

Post by oaiey »

manigandham wrote: post #120
oaiey wrote: post #78

These are no alternatives. GitHub is a specialized social network with git hosting included.

But there's no real stickiness there. Developers are not mainstream users who want a dumb UX like Facebook, they're perfectly capable of creating an account (if they don't already have one) and interacting with a project wherever it is. Most discussions are limited in scope to a project anyway so it's not like you need the whole site. What difference does it make to go visit issues on GitLab vs Github?

There is stickiness. Low entry burden for contributer is the key point why huge projects use GitHub instead of other platforms.

And me registering at dozen of platforms, reading the legal stuff, learning the platform,... And when I finally successful submit a one line patch (how: no idea) the maintainer has a fair 50% chance of dropping it. That is not what I will do. And I will not be alone :).

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#157

Post by shakna »

whatever1 wrote: post #126

Enough with this. Does anyone have any hard evidence that SV Angel, or IVP, or Thrive Capital, or Sequoia Capital, or Andreessen Horowitz (the main investors in GitHub), had more noble intentions, or management style than Microsoft of Nadella? Github was not a non-profit company. But you were willing to upload your private repo there. And somehow now it is problematic.

> Does anyone have any hard evidence that SV Angel, or IVP, or Thrive Capital, or Sequoia Capital, or Andreessen Horowitz (the main investors in GitHub), had more noble intentions, or management style than Microsoft of Nadella?

Microsoft has a history of being horrible and worse to the open source community. Now, they may be trying to change that, but GitHub didn't have that history.

Microsoft have baggage, and well-deserved baggage, when it comes to the open source world.

Can I trust that they won't go back to their old tricks in five years? I don't know. But that's how long I need to use an ecosystem to justify hitching my horse to it, right now. (As a management decision).

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#158

Post by HelloNurse »

pmichaud wrote: post #88
untog wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting debate though. If the CEO and most of the major execs of a company have left, is it really worthwhile to factor statements made 17 years ago into your decision making process? Don't get me wrong, many will avoid MS-anything to punish them for their past conduct, which is a fair personal decision. But if you're trying to evaluate what MS will do in the future, I'm not sure how relevant 2001 is.

I basically agree with you, but just to play devil's advocate: > Maybe the relevant factor isn't whether the same people are in place, but rather that the process that selected those people at all, selected both the "linux is cancer" people, as well as the current people. And that process is the same as it was before, optimizing for the same things, and therefore it may try to undermine open source again, once the pr…

It isn't only a shortsighted selection process, but also cultural imprinting: the replacements of gone managers tend to be selected to be similar to them and fit in the same place, and this includes sharing similar opinions.

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#159

Post by HelloNurse »

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…

I see simply a generic fear of Microsoft, with their history of destructive acquisitions and unpleasant marketing strategies, doing something bad to GitHub users: something only they could do (involving LinkedIn, Windows, Visual Studio, etc.) and/or something that the far more harmless original GitHub wouldn't have considered.

From this point of view, speculation about what Microsoft could do is redundant; whatever they do, including nothing at all, will be considered suspect unless obviously harmful.

Re: GitHub Alternatives

#160

Post by O1111OOO »

whatever1 wrote: post #126

Enough with this. Does anyone have any hard evidence that SV Angel, or IVP, or Thrive Capital, or Sequoia Capital, or Andreessen Horowitz (the main investors in GitHub), had more noble intentions, or management style than Microsoft of Nadella? Github was not a non-profit company. But you were willing to upload your private repo there. And somehow now it is problematic.

> And somehow now it is problematic.

As far as I know, Github hasn't delivered a surveillance, keylogging Operating System. They haven't used deceptive practices in getting users to upgrade to Windows 10 (leading to class-action suits).

Too many people are stating as fact that Microsoft is not the same company they were 5 years ago. They are right... I think they are worse.

Post reply on HN