Why are you still using GitHub? GitLab is actually open-source, the UI is cleaner, and you can have as many private repos as you want without paying.
I actually host all of my personal code on my own server with GitLab CE.
GitLab's CEO has expressed solidarity with Github in regards to deleting repos for political reasons, so I won't use either service. Self hosted is the way to go.
>GitLab's CEO has expressed solidarity with Github in regards to deleting repos for political reasons, so I won't use either service. Self hosted is the way to go.
Can you link specifics on this?
Their product is the CE/Enterprise editions of their software, which can be self-hosted and the source is accessible. However, GitHub enterprise doesn't allow you to hose your own instance of GitHub.
I hate mentioning gamergate, but it is what it is.
>You are correct that hosting repo's on GitLab.com is at the discretion of GitLab B.V. Public repo's that are not respectful in our opinion might be deleted without notice. This is clearly stated in the terms.
>Private repo's are held to another standard but might still be terminated. We advise anyone to self host if they want to be in control.
Businesses should have the power to choose who they do business with, but I also don't want my personal code getting deleted because I disagree with an SJW somewhere else on the internet, so I self-host.
You are just arguing semantics. I'm not saying GitHub should have to open their source, they can do whatever the fuck they want, but I reserve my right to criticize them for this just as they have the right to do it. The fact of the matter is, whenever GitHub censors someone, you do not have any recourse at that point; it is their hardware, their servers, their say no matter what, whereas GitLab can be self-hosted on your own hardware and you can completely control it due to it being open-source.
Are you planning on self hosting your own project? Then use whatever platform you want. Opemn source doesn't even matter in this case. There are many closed source git hosting platforms. Do you want someone else to host your project? Then why does it fucking matter if the host does not release their internal software? You are looking for a SERVICE.
You still haven't provided with a single advantage of having the code behind a service be open source. The code that 4chan runs on is not released to the public? Why are you still using this site. I heard reddit is open source. Maybe you should go there?
I hate to say it but other anon is right. There is no point in a web service being open source, because what source code they give might not necessarily be whats running on their servers.
The advantage is that people can vet the codebase of their service themselves and the community can actively contribute to bugfixes and patching security vulnerabilities? For example, I would not trust a service with any of my important data if they were rolling their own unpublished encryption setups.
Obviously there is no comprehensive way to be 100% sure they are using the open-sourced version of their software on their servers, but there are various means of auditing server responses to check if it is behaving the way it should if it were running the open-source version of the software.
It isn't "random code" and your argument is shit, you have no more evidence that they are running some top secret government honeypot than I do that they aren't except you are the one making the claim and the burden of proof is on you. Do you have any evidence? No, ok, fuck off.
I claimed the company is better because it is open-source because of various reasons, including the fact the community can contribute to bug fixes and patching security vulnerabilities. Also user's can make informed decisions on if they think the software is stable and secure by looking themselves.
You claimed that the service could potentially be running code other than what they claim, based on NOTHING.
If it's closed source and you're starting a new project that you'd like to make money out of, the last thing you want is for the product you're using to be either insecure or send your code to somebody.
If it is open source you would be able to see that. Now fuck off
If you're doing it locally on your machine, no.
If you're doing it on a machine that you'd like to access remotely, obviously yes.
Digital ocean has a one-click gitlab VM you can build that will run you $10 a month if you're not experienced with running a server.
To the stupid fuck in this thread that can't into open vs closed source
Der Medienkritiker Hans Hoff gibt diesem Umstand eine massenmediale Dimension: "Es ist nicht schlimm, dass sich heutzutage jeder Depp öffentlich äußern kann. Das ist gut für eine Demokratie. Es ist indes schlimm, dass heutzutage jeder Depp ernst genommen wird, dass so getan wird, als wäre noch die abstruseste Theorie eine Meldung wert."
Digital Ocean is known for shutting down VM without actually checking when they get an email complaining of abuse, whether spam, copyright violation, or racist content.
Trolls have successfully wiped sites hosted on Digital Ocean using this method in the past.
Have to add though, it's fucking retarded how a project's landing page doesn't list any files - and to view the files, you have to click on the filesize of the latest commit. What the fuck?
You don't need a git host most of the time.
You can use git locally and rsync or git push to your own file server without any hosting bullshit. The only time I use a service is to patch or share.
And then my README.md doesn't appear.
Why not just use the layout of Github? It just werks.
Another annoying thing is you can't clone from the URL you visit in your browser, you have to use a special URL that's generated.
VCS has only gone backwards, Gitlab doesn't have the features of VSS I used nearly a decade ago. That's fucking insane.
>The advantage is that people can vet the codebase of their service themselves
Doesn't happen, ever. Massive multinational companies don't even "vet" software their entire operation depends upon.
>the community can actively contribute to bugfixes and patching security vulnerabilities
Again doesn't happen, even tools hundreds of thousands of programmers depend on to deploy their software won't get more than a couple of insignificant patches.
See: robovm; they cracked recently after years upon years of nobody helping them maintain a massive effort so they closed sourced that shit. JkDefrag did too.
It doesn't matter how you phrase it, stop defending this shit. Actually pic related.
People won't spoonfeed you information readily available on Google. Since I'm not the guy you're quoting, I'll provide one (1) free Google: https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=Digital+Ocean#safe=off&q=Digital+Ocean+spam