131–137 of 137 posts
* The features don't seem to follow the costs of running them. I.e., they're economically inefficient. This makes GitLab less competitive. E.g., Some features held back for higher paying customers feel arbitrary in the sense that it's a marketing decision, not an ops/cost decision.
* Permanent nag text and nag links - annoying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That one is exactly ours, too. We have 275 users in license, bought when GitLab Enterprise was the thing. We set up GitLab to help establish innersourcing (e.g. https://about.gitlab.com/2016/07/07/trends-version-control-i... ), where all employees are users -- no exceptions. We run a GitLab introduction as part of onboarding of all employees, whether techies, marketing people or recruiters. Our 275 users are an eclec…
If you buy ultimate you get free guest users. Would that help?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That one is exactly ours, too. We have 275 users in license, bought when GitLab Enterprise was the thing. We set up GitLab to help establish innersourcing (e.g. https://about.gitlab.com/2016/07/07/trends-version-control-i... ), where all employees are users -- no exceptions. We run a GitLab introduction as part of onboarding of all employees, whether techies, marketing people or recruiters. Our 275 users are an eclec…
If you buy ultimate you get free guest users. Would that help?
The 250 users who don't need Ultimate are using our GitLab-installation for entirely different things (different projects, different repositories, etc) than the 25 who do.
For example, our training academy keeps a bit of training material in asciidoc format, stored in GitLab, and available to everybody in the organization . GitLab Starter is fine for this need, and this is one reason why every employee has a GitLab license.
On the other hand we have a software project with 6-8 team members who could benefit from GitLab Ultimate. Their needs do not apply to the rest of the company, so we will not get 275 Ultimate licenses for this purpose.
We want (wanted) to have a single GitLab instance to rally around, where we could keep track of all sorts of projects across the company. We went for the Enterprise edition to make sure we could use it without limitations, but we're slowly realizing that it ain't so.
Also, some quick stats: 264 users with altogether 76 groups and 887 projects, adding 5-10 projects a week and 5-10 users a month. We managed to create the hub we wanted, but the hub we bought is no longer catering for our needs, and the hub we need is too expensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That one is exactly ours, too. We have 275 users in license, bought when GitLab Enterprise was the thing. We set up GitLab to help establish innersourcing (e.g. https://about.gitlab.com/2016/07/07/trends-version-control-i... ), where all employees are users -- no exceptions. We run a GitLab introduction as part of onboarding of all employees, whether techies, marketing people or recruiters. Our 275 users are an eclec…
If you buy ultimate you get free guest users. Would that help?
GitLab's issue tracker and Wiki would be a perfect fit for me to support customers and non-contributors. I really think you should try to make that type of distinction. I would describe a "non-contributor" as someone that generates work for contributors. Ex: Customers submitting issues that a developer needs to fix.
I don't understand the reluctance to make guests free for everyone. If you're worried about existing licenses getting dropped in favor of free guests, you've got a big problem that's going to catch up with you eventually. People don't like paying for things they're not using.
If you think free guest users will encourage people to upgrade, I don't like that either. It's really frustrating to get locked out of features that would be useful to me just because I'm not a huge developer that can afford Ultimate licenses. I'd say that limiting my ability to develop good processes and workflows, as a tactic for "encouraging" me to upgrade, isn't going to leave me felling confident in my choice to use GitLab. Giving me the ability to scale up when I need it / can afford it will.
I want licensing that scales up with me, not licencing that I need to buy if I want to scale up. Get it? I'm already making a HUGE trade-off to move from CE to a paid license because I can't add contributors for free any more.
As a general observation, the way GitLab's cost scales up seems weird to me. If you plot the incremental cost of adding users to (ex:) JIRA, it looks like a hill that gets easier to climb as you add users. If you do the same for GitLab, it looks like a set of stairs (aka steps). Every time you jump tiers there's a huge pricing cliff you need to be able to climb. If the features I need to scale up (my business) are locked behind those pricing cliffs, I think it's risky to buy into that, isn't it?
I really like the way Microsoft does their licensing with Office 365. They let you arbitrarily assign licenses on a per user basis. For example, I can have one user on "Business Premium" and everyone else on "Business Essentials". Have you ever considered something similar?
I feel like I get really good value out of the Office 365 model. To use GitLab as an example, I "make do" with "Starter" because I don't want to bear the cost of an upgrade for every user. With Office 365 I'd simply buy a "Premium" license for myself and leave everyone else with "Starter" licenses.
I would also say that if you ever decide to allow arbitrary, per-user licenses, the first user should get a free Ultimate license. I've used GitLab for 2+ years and I have no idea what features are available in Ultimate. I pretty much live in CE / Starter. There's no way for me to discover the features I don't have.
I'd also be willing to buy short term licenses, if that were an option, which is another reason guest users being free for everyone might be a good idea. For example, if I'm working on a project for 1 month, it would be nice to be able to give a few people access as collaborators / contributors. However, I don't want to "kick them out" once the project is done, so a downgrade to a free guest user would make a lot of sense. As it is, there's no chance I'm buying licenses for anyone because it's annual only pricing and kicking them out when the project is done makes it seem like I don't want to support the project.
To add something positive, the GitLab (product) issue trackers are amazingly well run. I've never run into a problem with GitLab where I felt like it wasn't worth my time to create an issue for it.
A few years ago I really wanted to join GitHub as a software engineer. I was living in San Francisco and visited their office for some events, and I thought it would be an awesome place to work. I tried reaching out to a few people who worked there, but I could never get my foot in the door. There were a lot of things I would have loved to build at GitHub, and they were all the same things that GitLab is doing now. I…
I will address the concerns around compensation. I appreciate the comments and understand that working remotely is not valued the same by all and has its own unique challenges. However, the challenge of location influenced pay is not unique to remote companies. I worked at large, traditional companies for years who had different pay for team members in the Silicon Valley, and those in other offices. Of course, with t…
Is that anywhere near the calculation information? I didn't see it. This is very helpful if you are looking for people in the DC area, particularly Northern VA as you have the Rent Index as:
Washington DC - 0.780 Virginia - 0.488
Northern VA, even a bit further than your 90 min number, can still be on par with DC pricing.
GitLab is a great service, not perfect but a good alternative to GitHub. I actually use Gitter far more than GitLab these days, GitLab acquired them a while back and I'm really disappointed to see it reduced to stagnation. The product hasn't improved at all since the acquisition, you can argue that it's "finished" and it is 90% there. There are rough edges that make it more annoying to use than Telegram, Slack, etc.…
Heya, I'm the current Gitter developer and was working on Gitter before the acquisition. After the acquisition, Gitter did stagnate with no movement as we settled into our new GitLab roles and responsibilities but since May, we have been actively shipping things again. Changelog: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitter/webapp/blob/develop/CHA... . Catching up from the break in development, a lot of work so far has been…
> By Android notifications being broken, I assume you probably mean our double-buzz avoidance, https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitter/webapp/issues/1846
That does indeed look like the issue I am experiencing. We've got a setup where our IRC channel is relayed to/from Gitter so I am usually on IRC instead of Gitter web. But this means that I need to manually discard mentions on Gitter web, otherwise I get a notification that is super long containing all my mentions. This means I cannot easily see what was said to me at the time of the notification.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Revenue? GitHub has been operating at a loss right up to the moment that MS bought them for over a thousand times what they had to start making annually to not run a loss.
You're confusing revenue with profit.
While having no profit does not imply you have insufficient revenue, running your business at a loss absolutely does. So: wanting another company in the same space to have the same kind of revenue profile is extremely questionable; you want them to have a sustainable revenue model, and the ideally on top of that, be profitable.