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

Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 131 posts

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#111

Post by Ironlikebike »

nirui wrote: post #24

Few years ago, I tried to un-squatting an username from both GitLab and GitHub (yes, GitHub were doing this back then), both with success. During the attempt I studied the policies for both service and noticed the difference between the two: For GitHub, they were lean towards not to release the username especially when the account is valid and not "empty"; For GitLab however, they will release the username if the acc…

"That knowledge about GitLab left a weird and confused taste in me. It gives me an impression, that is if a free tier user becomes inactive, they're no longer valuable for GitLab and can be treated as second-tier."

GitLab has an explicit program for approved Open Source projects:

https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/community-relati...

This is their philanthropic effort. They need to remain financially solvent to provide anything long term, so of course they need to be careful how much they're giving away and for how long.

If you're not in the approved open source program, you should consider your usage of the "Free Tier" as part of their freemium business model whereby they hope to convert you at some point into a paying customer.

> GitLab should seriously re-learn what's more important for their service: user engagement or the code hosted on it.

They're a business that needs to pay the builds (including the long-term costs of storage). If they haven't approved your projects into their open source program, you should consider paying them to host the code.

I have my own issues with GitLab, but I won't judge them for the need to pay the bills.

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#112

Post by berryton »

tanepiper wrote: post #77
TheChaplain wrote: post #40

I love GitLab and would like to support them, men $19 is just way too much for a solo dev. If they had a $5 for a "Pro"-tier I'd go for it.

Yes, GitHub is $4 a month for Pro and it does give some additional features (mostly more Action minutes and protected branches) GitLab has nothing to compete against that.

This is the right mindset.

Instead of arguing "we need to cut costs", why don't they work on an entry-level paid tier? Seriously, it is like they're not even trying to compete with GH at this level.

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#113

Post by davidguetta »

fariszr wrote: post #104
lol768 wrote: post #73

There's a reason GitHub is the de facto host for OSS projects, I'd posit that open source maintainers who deliberately choose an unconventional host like GitLab already increase the barrier to contributions (not just due to network effects, but an unfamiliar UI, feature parity, poor performance etc) and this change would've already tipped the balance in my view and made it even clearer GitLab is not the right choice…

After Copilot, and their complete refusal to explain their stance towards software license compliance with CoPilot, I don't think sticking to GitHub is the right thing to do. And GitHub can afford to offer all of these things for free because they are owned by Microsoft and they are playing the long game. CoPilot is probably one of monetization steps coming. I have been planing to switch to GitLab because of it, even…

No post body was provided.

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#114

Post by Lutger »

nirui wrote: post #24

Few years ago, I tried to un-squatting an username from both GitLab and GitHub (yes, GitHub were doing this back then), both with success. During the attempt I studied the policies for both service and noticed the difference between the two: For GitHub, they were lean towards not to release the username especially when the account is valid and not "empty"; For GitLab however, they will release the username if the acc…

> It gives me an impression, that is if a free tier user becomes inactive, they're no longer valuable for GitLab and can be treated as second-tier.

You can't, without paying, sit on a namespace for years and do nothing with it, if there is interest from a user willing to pay. And even if that is what you're doing, gitlab will contact you before taking back the account to make sure you don't suffer data loss. I don't know, this seems pretty reasonable to me, especially considering gitlab is a business and provides you with a free service.

You just have to log in more than once every two years!

I don't blame Gitlab for not understanding the levels of self-entitlement of some of its free users. And maybe, just maybe, Gitlab is better off without those users. In my experience, the cheap customers were always the worst and most demanding.

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#115

Post by thrashh »

L6489afSMNLNFDa wrote: post #86
lol768 wrote: post #73

There's a reason GitHub is the de facto host for OSS projects, I'd posit that open source maintainers who deliberately choose an unconventional host like GitLab already increase the barrier to contributions (not just due to network effects, but an unfamiliar UI, feature parity, poor performance etc) and this change would've already tipped the balance in my view and made it even clearer GitLab is not the right choice…

I would argue that choosing a closed platform like GitHub where users must sign their data and more over to and which (a) has absolutely no provision for contributing in any way without signing up (and thus giving them a wider "user base"), (b) is an entirely proprietary, for-profit platform built on the backs of open-source, and (c) is owned by a company with such a long history of ill will towards open-source; is w…

Ultimately someone has to pay for hosting. Unless open source projects are going to pay to exist, you can’t have cake and eat it too.

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#116

Post by mdaniel »

ArrayBoundCheck wrote: post #18
olliej wrote: post #3

I was kind of surprised that the hosting of such stuff was a significant enough cost that removing it was seen as worth it - but I have no idea what their annual revenue is, and a million dollars is a million dollars. That said, they were talking about deleting dead projects from unpaid accounts, and it does seem kind of shitty that as a community we seem to have decided that once a company has hosted some content th…

I'm still wondering why there isn't a bittorrent for git

In some sense, this has the same problem as TFA: who is going to seed those disused repos (same problem with ipfs linked in the sibling comment, which one can pay a "pinning node" but pay)

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#117

Post by Accujack »

PedroBatista wrote: post #97

Regardless of reasons ( I'm sure there are some good ones ), this was a "small" mistake that reveals a lot. I don't know if the people running Gitlab are dev/ops guys who found themselves running the ship or some high pedigree managers but this reveals an enormous blind spot on this group of people. One of the major driving forces for humans is loss aversion. Doesn't matter the project is abandoned or some garbage yo…

>I'm sure that wasn't what they were looking for and their monthly bill is big ( perhaps too big ), but setting fire to the whole thing isn't the right move.

It's owned by Microsoft, a for-profit company with a long history of hostility toward open source anything.

Literally setting fire to the building and servers IS the right move if it's what brings the most money in the door and keeps as little as possible from going out.

They don't and never will care about customer goodwill for something like their paid service, they'd stop offering it tomorrow if it made money for them.

Re: Gitlab U-turns on deleting dormant projects after backlash

#118

Post by arrow7000 »

Accujack wrote: post #117
PedroBatista wrote: post #97

Regardless of reasons ( I'm sure there are some good ones ), this was a "small" mistake that reveals a lot. I don't know if the people running Gitlab are dev/ops guys who found themselves running the ship or some high pedigree managers but this reveals an enormous blind spot on this group of people. One of the major driving forces for humans is loss aversion. Doesn't matter the project is abandoned or some garbage yo…

>I'm sure that wasn't what they were looking for and their monthly bill is big ( perhaps too big ), but setting fire to the whole thing isn't the right move. It's owned by Microsoft, a for-profit company with a long history of hostility toward open source anything. Literally setting fire to the building and servers IS the right move if it's what brings the most money in the door and keeps as little as possible from g…

This is about GitLab, not GitHub. GitLab is not owned by Microsoft.
Post reply on HN