231
Exclusive: Google-backed software developer GitLab explores sale, sources say | Reuters
(www.reuters.com)
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
231 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
59358 readers
4018 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think tech people understand how bad it is that Microsoft owns GitHub.
GitLab is one of the few places people could go if GitHub enshittifies too much. Google's stake in it (or full ownership of it) would probably be a good thing, because it would be seen as an important strategic hedge against Microsoft. If it's bought by a smaller player, I can see GitHub squeezing it into irrelevance.
I view Gitea as the real alternative to GitHub. I was very big on GitLab for a long time, and think any competition is good, but I'd really like it if more people could seriously invest in Gitea.
They're also working on ActivityPub support: https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/18240
Forgejo?
It's ironic that your alternative for GitHub is hosted on GitHub. That doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.
They host on Github for more visibility.
Yeah, I don't see how that's an issue at all. If Github kicks them, they'll just push to their own instance. They'd lose a few days to reconfigure the CI/CD or whatever, but that's about it.
I just wish GitHub wasn't part of MS anymore.
I also don't want Gitlab owned by another megacorp.
Something funded by the government but ran by a public org would be ideal.
Too bad. Microsoft is using it as part of their extremely long term plan to control the software that developers use to do their jobs. VSCode is another front in that battle. Things are going slowly, but they're winning.
They replaced Atom with VSCode, but some of the Atom devs are now working on Zed, which finally has Linux support. Or for a paid alternative, we have the Jetbrains suite, which can be excellent if that's your thing.
For Github, we still have Gitlab as an alternative, but once that goes, we have Gitea or Forgejo to move to.
The thing is that many developers are a vengeful bunch who hate big corps with their enshittification fetishes and love open source solutions. Microsoft has to tread really carefully here.
Ok... but just because someone's working on an alternative doesn't mean that alternative will be able to unseat VSCode. Microsoft is spending tens of millions per year to gently lock people into VSCode.
And they have been treading carefully for decades, and it's working. The people who supposedly hate big corps mostly use GitHub and VSCode. They're heating the water very, very slowly, and the frogs are staying in the pot.
"the government" which government?
I don't want software beholden to any state interests. I see donationware as the way to go; or if donations can't sustain server costs, donations for sustaining development, and then a public flagship instance which people can pay to use, or self-host for their own server costs.
Why the government? There are plenty of free git hosting services out there, take your pick. If gitlab goes away, move to gitea, forgejo, gitosis, etc.
GitLab is a parade of avoidable CVEs. There are better alternatives to worry for.