Earlier quoted context omitted.
Makes perfect sense to me. Because GL is open source, it can be easily self hosted, which is great for data residency compliance, or specialized security needs.
Self hosting is never easy. If you nerf the GitLab database by doing something unsupported or because of a bug, good luck with that. Source: an employer of mine nerfed the GitLab database and support to fix it was not an option, so we had to migrate to their cloud offering.
Gitlab from YC to IPO
161–170 of 258 posts
Re: Gitlab from YC to IPO
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
First 6 months of this year Gitlab took in $108M in revenue, and had $177M in expenses. Would you pay $10B to own a company that loses $10M/month, with the hopes they will continue to increase revenue in the future and become profitable?
In the 6 months before their IPO - Square had net revenue of $200 million and expenses of $260 million, also losing $10M/month. Would you have paid $3 billion in 2015 to own that business? If you had you would've had a 30x return today... (current market cap is ~$112 billion).
God forbids if you bought square long ago and didn't hold long enough, they had multiple years of ups and downs.
Re: Gitlab from YC to IPO
#163I'll admit that I was wrong about GitLab. I had the chance to invest in them way back in the day, and passed. My thought at the time was that no open source company had ever been super successful except RedHat, which was more of an outlier than a pattern. And my other thought was that they are competing against GitHub, which was extremely popular and well funded. I honestly didn't think they stood a chance. I'm happy…
> My thought at the time was that no open source company had ever been super successful except RedHat Sun bought MySQL for 1 billion USD in 2008, does that not count as successful? Also, MongoDB, Elastic and many many others...
Re: Gitlab from YC to IPO
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My thought at the time was that no open source company had ever been super successful except RedHat Sun bought MySQL for 1 billion USD in 2008, does that not count as successful? Also, MongoDB, Elastic and many many others...
MongoDB and Elastic are successful because they are locking features behind a paid license. Does that make it a successful open source company?
Re: Gitlab from YC to IPO
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My thought at the time was that no open source company had ever been super successful except RedHat Sun bought MySQL for 1 billion USD in 2008, does that not count as successful? Also, MongoDB, Elastic and many many others...
MongoDB and Elastic are successful because they are locking features behind a paid license. Does that make it a successful open source company?
Re: Gitlab from YC to IPO
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Seems like nobody can get anywhere near the functionality of Jenkins. I've heard Jenkins is a nightmare to administer (not sure about the new versions). Seems like an opportunity: the power of Jenkins with modern sensibility.
Jenkins is a nightmare because everyone decided to spend months customising it with groovy and it became overly specific to your team/dept. The servers themselves are quite simple (single .jar, etc). These days we have containers, and it's made CI a much better thing.
Yes. One thousand times this.
If you are running simple scripts it's fine. If you are using the declarative pipeline, it's fine. The moment you start adding Groovy you'll be down a path that is filled with sadness and anger. Mind you, even the folks behind Jenkins will advise you not to use any complex Groovy scripts(including for performance reasons - you can easily overwork the jenkins master).
I've been focusing on Concourse because it forces the usage of containers for everything. You don't have to care about what's installed in the worker node, you just use a container that has the stuff you want. Simple inputs and outputs.
You _can_ do the same sort of thing with Jenkins (but be aware of all the bugs still open regarding containers). But Jenkins doesn't force you to do anything, nor it gives you an easy and out of the box solution to string containers together. Left unchecked, you have your reproducible builds running in completely unreproduceable magical build machines – that noone really understands how it all works.
Did a migration of a few hundreds of pipelines from one server to another and it exposed a lot of dependencies we didn't know we had. Plugins, jars, packages installed in build machines, you name it.
If you must use Jenkins, please try to avoid Groovy to the max, write anything that's non-trivial as an executable (even if it is a bash script) and call it from the main pipeline. Use containers if you can to avoid build machine dependencies. Try to use declarative pipelines too unless your jobs are very simple, and avoid the 'script' blocks. Do not use the scripting pipeline to avoid inviting groovy to your home.
You can thank me in a couple of years.
Re: Gitlab from YC to IPO
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jenkins is a nightmare because everyone decided to spend months customising it with groovy and it became overly specific to your team/dept. The servers themselves are quite simple (single .jar, etc). These days we have containers, and it's made CI a much better thing.
I agree with this. The quality of your Jenkins experience will be pretty much inversely proportional to how much groovy script is in your Jenkinsfiles. Every new permutation of parameters is a new chance for something to go wrong, and there's basically no sane way to unit test or validate any of your "helper" functions, so they're all write-once-change-never. Which is not necessarily a problem inherent in Jenkins— Je…
You end up with this:
https://gist.github.com/Faheetah/e11bd0315c34ed32e681616e412...
Re: Gitlab from YC to IPO
#168I'll admit that I was wrong about GitLab. I had the chance to invest in them way back in the day, and passed. My thought at the time was that no open source company had ever been super successful except RedHat, which was more of an outlier than a pattern. And my other thought was that they are competing against GitHub, which was extremely popular and well funded. I honestly didn't think they stood a chance. I'm happy…
Re: Gitlab from YC to IPO
#169I'll admit that I was wrong about GitLab. I had the chance to invest in them way back in the day, and passed. My thought at the time was that no open source company had ever been super successful except RedHat, which was more of an outlier than a pattern. And my other thought was that they are competing against GitHub, which was extremely popular and well funded. I honestly didn't think they stood a chance. I'm happy…
I’ll echo a sentiment I also had but perhaps I was wrong. I believed that users of GitLab used GitLab because they didn’t want to pay a premium (or pay at all) for GitHub; thus I viewed it as a cheaper alternative in the same vein as buying a Hyundai vs buying a Mercedes. I assumed only frugal “developers” were using it, and surely any legit companies would opt for the superior GitHub.
Not because GitHub is bad in any particular way, I just like the feature set and UI of GitLab better. Less of a "Hyundai vs Mercedes" thing, and more of a "Ford vs Chevy" thing.
They're both decent and they both have approximately the same level of "premium-ness". They're just feature-wise and aesthetically slightly different in arbitrary ways. And some people either do or don't vibe better with the one or the other.
Re: Gitlab from YC to IPO
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
GitHub has stronger 'social' features and it's better for people who want to connect to other devs or build portfolios. GitLab is years ahead of GitHub for certain stuff (e.g. CI/CD) and IMO it has a better commercial offering for business. I use GitHub as my portfolio profile for free and GitLab in my $JOB. That's my opinion tho, I'm just a person who uses both.
GitHub's CI pipelines are behind GitLab? My lord, here I was thinking about moving to GitHub Enterprise when our subscription expires because everything in GitLab feels like an unfinished weekend project. Seems like nobody can get anywhere near the functionality of Jenkins.
I could go on and on, Github Actions are horrid compared to Gitlab. I wish, wish wish I could go back but I don't have that power here. Github doesn't have scoped issues like Gitlab, the issue board is so lacking, "projects" is stale and featureless so many things.
But I AM the one who deals with the aftermath. I've spent days fixing one simple github action and I have plenty I don't even wind up deploying they're so problematic.