[HN Gopher] Tell HN: Gitlab Premium pricing increases incoming $...
___________________________________________________________________
Tell HN: Gitlab Premium pricing increases incoming $19 to $29
Author : dijit
Score : 109 points
Date : 2023-03-02 16:55 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (about.gitlab.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (about.gitlab.com)
| 2bluesc wrote:
| Ironically, the IPv4 address for gitlab.com in my region is on a
| blocklist this morning[0]: $ drill -Q @1.1.1.1
| gitlab.com 172.65.251.78 $ drill -Q @8.8.8.8
| gitlab.com 172.65.251.78 $ curl -s
| https://iplists.firehol.org/files/firehol_level3.netset | grep
| 172.65.251.78 172.65.251.78
|
| [0] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/gl-
| infra/production/-/issues/6...
| seanconaty wrote:
| https://sourcehut.org/pricing/
| dist1ll wrote:
| https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-31-tos-update-cryptocurre...
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| Yeah, I can't in good faith recommend sourcehut anymore given
| their policies.
| turblety wrote:
| Yeah, same. I could never use a service that will just
| arbitary ban any legal and legit project type, just because
| of the owners bias.
| kodah wrote:
| Personally I've read enough blog posts off that domain to not
| click that link. YMMV.
| neilv wrote:
| How do people like sourcehut.org for open source projects? For
| startups? For established "enterprise"?
|
| I overall like GitLab for startups, especially since I can do
| my own flavor of Kanban with the scoped labels feature of their
| Premium account. So I'm leaning towards also moving my personal
| open source to gitlab.com, just to simplify. I would've already
| moved, but gitlab.com's CloudFlare setup is blocking my
| Firefox. And a couple times now GitLab has changed the pricing
| dramatically, and I won't like surprises like that after I've
| invested many hours to move there.
| mdaniel wrote:
| The "we use email for pull requests, like Linux" is a "you've
| got to be kidding me" level facepalm
| a13n wrote:
| It's interesting to me that Hacker News's impression of this
| change is basically:
|
| > Gitlab has switched into the "squeeze money from customers
| phase". It is time to leave.
|
| ...while the stock market's impression of this change is "wow
| this company is worth an extra 20% now".
| tiffanyh wrote:
| This seem more like Wallstreet is reacting to a company
| projecting to increase revenues by 52% (from $19->$29) YoY.
| Hamuko wrote:
| That only sounds plausible if 100% of your revenue comes from
| GitLab Premium customers.
| sScTE9qEMCxEk34 wrote:
| I expect it's close, honestly. I dunno who's paying
| $100/month for what GitHub offers (but on a platform that
| all your devs already know) for $20/month...
| tiffanyh wrote:
| Fair point, though their stock price didn't go up by 52%.
|
| Seems like Wallstreet is pricing in the fact this doesn't
| effect all plans.
| [deleted]
| debacle wrote:
| Gitlab's pull request functionality is inferior to both Github
| and Teams. We use them because their Kanban is nice and they're a
| bit more "one stop shop" than Github, but this pricing change
| doesn't make sense for us.
| mdaniel wrote:
| I don't work for GL but I'd be interested to hear what you
| think makes the GL pull request functionality inferior _(my
| guess is you 're going to say the number of "actions" available
| that target the GH API but it's just a guess)_
| debacle wrote:
| Large PRs are buggy, the flow is less intuitive, and in
| certain instances the PR UI just "breaks" and you need to
| refresh the page.
|
| Sometimes diffs are bad (I would bet github uses diff -ow, or
| something similar) and in general PRs are a drag.
| mdaniel wrote:
| Thank you. I've been following these _family_ of bugs for
| what feels like years (although this specific one has
| _only_ been open 6 years): https://gitlab.com/gitlab-
| org/gitlab/-/issues/16448
|
| Typing out 85 review comments and having them swallowed by
| a 500 response because the frontend thought that _of
| course_ XHRs are always 200 OK, why wouldn 't they be? is
| indescribably infuriating
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| What the hell. I'd be extremely pissed off if that
| happened to me. Does GitLab not save reviews as you go
| like GitHub seems to?
| mdaniel wrote:
| It "saves" them in that they are persisted on the server
| (as best I can tell) but the sequence is
| 1. POST /review/temp 1. POST /review/temp #
| all done, submit the batch 1. POST /review/submit
| <- 500 Oops we sorrwweee # now every comment is
| gone
|
| I don't recall this second whether the actual sequence is
| "POST" followed by "DELETE /review/temp" meaning this is
| 100% a JS bug or whether it's "POST" and the controller
| for submit nukes the temp version, making it a ruby bug
|
| And yes, "extremely pissed" isn't strong enough but ...
| put it on the list of the other 48,000 issues, I guess
| polskibus wrote:
| try VSCode plugin for reviewing large MRs.
| mdaniel wrote:
| Thank you for your suggestion. I don't want to locally
| clone every project and then checkout every branch of MRs
| assigned to me just to work around their XHR issues
|
| If I had more energy, I'd try that on some big MR to just
| to find out whether their stupid extension also just
| assumes all XHRs are 200 OK. That'd be some icing on the
| cake
| vorpalhex wrote:
| I've generally moved from Gitlab to Gitea + Drone.
|
| Gitlab has switched into the "squeeze money from customers
| phase". It is time to leave.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| How does Gitea compare? Likes/dislikes?
|
| Also, did you ever look into Gogs?
| junon wrote:
| Gitea had issues a few years back with mirroring many
| repositories at once, deadlocking and remaining that way
| until it was reinstalled, essentially. It led me to believe
| it's not the _most_ stable software but I would imagine it 's
| improved quite a lot over the years.
|
| It is extremely simple and easy to set up, though, and works
| well as both a private as well as a publicly hosted instance
| out of the box, depending on how you configure it.
| [deleted]
| number6 wrote:
| I selfhost gitlab for years now. My preffered road.
| dijit wrote:
| There's only a couple of missing features (for me, anyway) if
| you self host compared to the premium licensed self-hosted
| version (which, insanely, is the same price as the SaaS
| product!):
|
| * CODEOWNERS
|
| EDIT: Not true anymore! -- ~ * Protected branches (IE;
| preventing people committing to master/main) ~
|
| * Approval Rules in merge requests
|
| * Merge trains (auto-merging if another merge request depends
| on another).
|
| * Viewing Jira issues in Gitlab
| number6 wrote:
| Merge trains would be nice, protected branches definitely
| exist.
|
| Never missed the other features tbh
| bink wrote:
| Not trying to excuse the behavior but from what I've heard
| talking to other SaaS vendors... self-hosted is often
| priced similarly to the SaaS offering because even though
| the hosting costs are paid by the customer the support
| costs are often much higher.
| sScTE9qEMCxEk34 wrote:
| I'm sure the hosting costs are a rounding error for
| Gitlab for the vast majority of ("cloud") customers.
| Knowing how big some repos are, storage is probably their
| biggest cost... and, coincidentally enough, they charge
| for that a la carte!
| matthew-wegner wrote:
| I did a quick Slack bot that messages a channel with open
| merge requests every morning. I really wanted to show the
| approval status, too, just as a reminder for someone to go
| "oh, that's approved, I should go merge".
|
| But the _entire_ approval-related API fields are
| deliberately removed on free tier, not just the web UI
| "require approval" functionality. I found this to be pretty
| heavy handed, especially for a self-hosted instance.
| mantas wrote:
| Protected branches is no longer premium-only.
| bdcravens wrote:
| If you need the features in the Premium offering, you still
| have to purchase licensing.
| e12e wrote:
| > I've generally moved from Gitlab to Gitea + Drone.
|
| Do you use actions with Gitea? If so - how does drone fit in
| with/replace nektos/act?
| lazypenguin wrote:
| Interesting turn of events. For my team of about 10 users (5 just
| for access to wiki/issues) we recently moved to GitHub. When
| Gitlab first announced the price changes, annual billing and user
| restrictions on Gitlab.com we reluctantly went to self-hosted.
| Over time we got tired of the maintenance and the system was just
| slowly coming to a crawl. We switched to GitHub and we went from
| freeloaders on Gitlab to paying customers simply because they had
| a price appropriate tier for our team ($4/user vs. $19/user and
| now $29/user).
|
| Actually we use LFS aggressively which can get pricey on GitHub
| but I'm happy to pay for usage rather than some arbitrary per
| user number. If I add a user who just needs access to issue board
| I have to pay $348 upfront with Gitlab! Multiply that by factors
| of 10 and the numbers creep up. Peanuts for an established
| business with revenue but not for a boot strapped venture or
| hobby project.
|
| Strong signals who Gitlab's target market is.
| brightball wrote:
| Personally, I'm willing to pay for it just to keep everything
| in one system.
|
| Gitlab's aim seems to be to replace the mashup of multiple 3rd
| party systems into a central place for the company. The
| associated costs of each one of those systems, user management,
| etc that go with them adds up.
|
| Plus, you have to consider any per-user pricing as part of your
| cost per employee. If you're paying somebody a salary who's
| accessing a system where they interact with the rest of the
| company...$29 is not a big deal when lumped in with the salary,
| benefits, taxes, etc.
|
| If you're a few college students working in your spare time
| with no income, sure it's a problem. But even then Gitlab gives
| away plenty on the free tier and you can each setup a runner on
| your own laptops to avoid paying for CI minutes.
|
| IMO, this pricing is very reasonable considering the variable
| quality of different integrated systems out there.
| barefeg wrote:
| Do you think pricing based on features would be more
| reasonable for people that don't currently have the need for
| the other 3rd party systems? I've heard that they don't want
| to make pricing more complex but it does seem like a steep
| pricing if you only need say what GitHub offers for $4/user.
| brightball wrote:
| Which features are you looking for? Just curious because
| they have added a lot to the free tier too.
| numbsafari wrote:
| I would be fine with this if the users who are not code
| oriented could have a purpose built UX, instead of having to
| face down all of the code stuff.
| jacobr1 wrote:
| Interesting - what are your non-coding use cases?
| plonk wrote:
| I've seen people maintain a static website with Jekyll
| and GitLab. It was about a math-adjacent research field
| and the system was quite nice for this use-case.
|
| Definitely not worth a paying subscription though. IIRC a
| public lab was hosting and maintaining the instance for
| all their employees.
| numbsafari wrote:
| > If I add a user who just needs access to issue board I have
| to pay $348 upfront with Gitlab!
|
| This is the same on GH, as per our sales rep.
| tedivm wrote:
| Even the most expensive enterprise plan with Github is only
| $231 per user per year (since we're talking about yearly
| upfront).
|
| https://github.com/pricing
| asmor wrote:
| GHAE is not listed on that page.
| Centigonal wrote:
| Even if they lose 30% of their premium customers as a result of
| this change, they still come out ahead on revenue (and even
| further ahead on earnings, given the smaller userbase needed to
| maintain that revenue).
|
| Not great for new premium user acquisition though.
| misnome wrote:
| > As GitLab's first price increase in more than five years
|
| This seems... wrong. I swear that we were forced into a more
| expensive plan in the past couple of years; did they discontinue
| some middle plan that "Technically" means that this isn't a price
| increase?
|
| Pretty shitty gaslighting, if (if!) that is the case.
| the_jeremy wrote:
| In 2021[0], GitLab removed the lowest paid tier of $4/user,
| meaning you either paid $19/user or nothing.
|
| In 20222[1], GitLab removed features from the free tier.
|
| [0]:
| https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/27/gitlab_removes_starte...
| [1]: https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2022/03/24/efficient-free-
| tier...
| misnome wrote:
| Right. That strikes me... as a price increase.
| bootloop wrote:
| Personal anecdote: I recently looked at the Gitlab pricing /
| model, in particular for on-premise hosting, as we came across
| Gitlab booth at a show. I wasn't very happy with our solution so
| an alternative would have been really welcome. I was so confused
| by the many redirects and feature lists on the page that we
| decided to ask a representative there to explain it to us
| instead. If I remember correctly the outcome was that if we host
| it ourselves we pay 100$/person/month.
|
| What surprised me was how surprised the representative was that
| there is absolutely no way I would be able to convince the CFO to
| go from 0 to 100$/person a month for a bit of convenience.
| Apparently, quote: There are many who are happy to pay that. -
| WHO AND WHY?
| sScTE9qEMCxEk34 wrote:
| It doesn't even matter if you self-host or not. It's the same
| price either way. I have the same question as you.
| seanconaty wrote:
| https://www.atlassian.com/software/bitbucket/pricing
| ok_dad wrote:
| I would pay literally anyone else 10x that price per user just
| to not use Atlassian software.
| echelon wrote:
| Bitbucket used to fall over for monorepos. Sometimes it would
| fall into a death spiral, sometimes it would attribute PRs
| and commits to the wrong engineers (!!!) Not sure if that's
| still the case, but it was awful working with it.
|
| Don't even get me started on the dumpster fire that is Jira.
| xwowsersx wrote:
| Yep
| llamaLord wrote:
| PM for Bitbucket pipelines here, my team of ~20 owns that
| feature E2W, would genuinely love to chat, share some stuff
| we're working on, and get feedback/thoughts.
|
| Ping me if you're open to chatting emunday@atlassian.com
| plonk wrote:
| I'm glad you're working on BB. We switched to GitHub a year
| ago and are happy with it, but with a slightly better UI
| and more reliable/advanced CI/CD features, I might not have
| been able to justify the switch.
| snickerbockers wrote:
| >atlassian.com.com
|
| Is that an honest mistake or are you actually trying a
| phishing scam here?
| llamaLord wrote:
| Ahh f..k - phone keyboard, thank you, fixed now.
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| I get the feeling this sentiment is not necessarily because
| BB sucks, but because people don't trust Atlassian.
|
| After the shit show last year with the week long outage and
| all the shit JIRA gets I don't think very highly of
| Atlassian as a company either.
| anonymoustrolol wrote:
| Does anyone use Bitbucket? Do you like it? I struggle to see
| the use case unless you only need a repo, or do they have CI/CD
| now too?
| whirlwin wrote:
| We use Bitbucket Cloud. About 250 repositories, 50-ish with
| CI/CD functionality. It is sloooow. In 2022 there were more
| than a few outages. Very annoying. And this year so far I had
| issues onboarding a new colleague due to invitation emails
| not being sent out.
|
| Other than that it's cheap by itself, but count in developer
| hours spent just waiting, and it's suddenly not so cheap
| after all.
| llamaLord wrote:
| PM for Bitbucket pipelines here, my team of ~20 owns that
| feature E2W, would genuinely love to chat, share some stuff
| we're working on, and get feedback/thoughts.
|
| Ping me if you're open to chatting emunday@atlassian.com
| PaywallBuster wrote:
| They do have CI/CD
|
| Some companies look like they never moved away from Bitbucket
|
| And now that they have some half-assed CI/CD offering, _some_
| companies are moving into it as the first CI/CD tool they've
| ever used
| llamaLord wrote:
| PM for Bitbucket pipelines here, my team of ~20 owns that
| feature E2W, would genuinely love to chat, share some stuff
| we're working on, and get feedback/thoughts.
|
| Ping me if you're open to chatting emunday@atlassian.com
| bsagdiyev wrote:
| Yes -- I like it enough that I still use my personal 10 user
| license at home for work that I do outside of working hours.
| xwowsersx wrote:
| I use Bitbucket at $job. They do have CI/CD now, it's called
| Bitbucket Pipelines. It's not bad, not great. For better or
| worse, I always measure version control hosting against
| GitHub which is still the king in my opinion. There are so
| many little things that GH has which BB doesn't. When you add
| them all together, it's easy to see why you'd want to switch
| to GH or something similar.
|
| Examples:
|
| GH lets you write comments/feedback on a PR and then submit
| it (sort of like staging the comments) in one fell swoop.
| With BB, each comment triggers a notification to the PR
| author.
|
| GH has draft PRs. Debatable how useful these are, but people
| definitely like them on GH and that's not an option on BB.
|
| GH has built-in support for Mermaid in markdown, BB doesn't
| and won't ever.
|
| GH Actions generally seem more flexible. BB, for example,
| doesn't let you call a custom "Pipe" when using your own Mac
| OS runner in BB Pipelines -- something you need to do if you
| want to build Apple projects -- which is just a strange and
| frustrating limitation.
|
| There are so many other things. In general, BB is just slow
| and janky as almost all Atlassian products are. Every time
| you click to complete or submit something, you just
| experience slowness.
|
| I'd switch to GH in a minute if we could, but our team
| already uses so much other Atlassian crap that we're kind of
| stuck with it at the moment.
| djvdq wrote:
| I'm using BitBucket at work and it seems like it's no
| longer "one comment - one notification". When adding the
| comment to the PR there's "Start review" button, so and at
| the end you just click "Finish review" and everything goes
| as one notification.
| llamaLord wrote:
| PM for Bitbucket pipelines here, my team of ~20 owns that
| feature E2W, would genuinely love to chat, share some stuff
| we're working on, and get feedback/thoughts.
|
| Ping me if you're open to chatting emunday@atlassian.com
| belak wrote:
| They introduced Bitbucket Pipelines around when I left, about
| 7 years ago.
|
| - https://bitbucket.org/product/features/pipelines
|
| - https://bitbucket.org/blog/introducing-bitbucket-
| pipelines-b...
| seanconaty wrote:
| https://bitbucket.org/product/features/pipelines
| time0ut wrote:
| I use it (old self hosted and cloud. Also GitLab and GitHub
| on a regular basis.)
|
| BitBucket is ok.
|
| It doesn't have nearly the same feature set as the others.
| You have to bring on more of the Atlassian ecosystem to get
| those. The integrations with stuff like Jira and Confluence
| are solid of course.
|
| The features is does have are well implemented I feel. For
| example, the PR review UI is great. It is almost as good as
| GitHub's and worlds better than GitLab's. It has great access
| control that is probably a better fit for enterprise
| environments than the competition (another area where GitLab
| is lacking IME).
|
| BitBucket added CI/CD. I've used it only for one project. It
| got the job done, but was worse than the others.
| llamaLord wrote:
| PM for Bitbucket pipelines here, my team of ~20 owns that
| feature E2W, would genuinely love to chat, share some stuff
| we're working on, and get feedback/thoughts.
|
| Ping me if you're open to chatting emunday@atlassian.com
| alex_suzuki wrote:
| All that copy&pasting isn't helping, you know.
| the_duke wrote:
| Bitbucket was reasonably good 8 years ago, but they have
| progressively fallen further and further behind.
|
| I've seen lots of companies move away from their stack over the
| last few years.
|
| The UI is a dog slow , bloated mess of Javascript and is
| unusable on big PRs, and that's just the most obvious flaw.
|
| I personally would not recommend it.
| llamaLord wrote:
| Just an FYI - we (Bitbucket cloud) recently shipped changes
| to the PR experience (rebuilt the PR diffing algorithm) which
| has increased the speed by ~95%.
|
| 100% aware we still have a way to go on performance, but
| we're literally orders of magnitude faster than even 12
| months ago, with another order of magnitude on the cards this
| year, especially for larger customers (250+ users).
| eastbound wrote:
| Can you please share why you don't have a file list on a
| left panel (like in IntelliJ, Windows Explorer or even
| Bitbucket DC) while reviewing PRs? Do stats show that
| people _prefer_ to be shown a long diff with a tiny tab on
| the top-right that shows the list of files?
|
| Wouldn't that be a UX worth improving? (For us, we've
| attempted the move 3 times, but developers keep rejecting
| BBCloud because of the annoying UI - mostly the missing
| treeview to navigate files).
| bearjaws wrote:
| GitLab has probably 5x as many features as Bitbucket. For
| example you still need a ticketing system with Bitbucket
| (Jira), but not with Gitlab since its issues system is self
| contained.
| yumraj wrote:
| I find it interesting that several companies are enacting
| policies to extract more revenue from customers in this economy
| via price increases or policy changes.
|
| I feel that this may force customers who are looking to reduce
| cost leave respective platforms resulting in a negative impact on
| the revenue.
|
| Isn't the best strategy in an economic situation such as this to
| hold pricing and give one less reason for customers to drop off?
|
| At least that is what I'd do.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| And this is when Microsoft swoops in at the executive level and
| starts offering massive 1/2 year volume discounts including
| freebees like GitHub. Easy sell... or so I've heard.
| Atlas22 wrote:
| Its difficult to quantify a best strategy as there a many more
| variables at play than just what the customers can afford.
| There is usually a "sweet spot" for every type of customer that
| is a careful balance between price and amount of customers that
| maximizes profit. I'm doubtful that this price change will
| motivate more than 34% (1 - $19/$29) of their customer base to
| move elsewhere that would negate extra profits from price hike.
| Mostly due to the time required for customers to move elsewhere
| and the sunk investment of moving onto gitlab in the first
| place (a form of vendor lock in). There are also likely savings
| in other areas such as support that roughly scale with number
| of customers like sverhagen suggested.
|
| From a financial perspective, it seems likely that gitlab will
| profit from this change. They may be able to profit more and
| mitigate hobbyist/very small business business loss by
| introducing another tier but gitlab is the only one that has
| enough information to determine if that is worthwhile from
| their perspective.
| sverhagen wrote:
| I'm sure they have spreadsheets and math to back this up, and
| I'm going to wager that they decided that less customers in a
| higher tier is beneficial. The smaller customer base is not
| only made up for by the higher prices, but also the lesser
| overall customer acquisition costs and the typical lower cost
| to support this smaller group of customers, lots of whom may
| have staff of their own to field some of the basic support
| questions, before hitting up GitLab's support team.
|
| But it _does_ make me sad that there's just no step in-between.
| I don't need to be a complete free-loader, but you quickly
| exceed the 5-user limit of the Free plan, after which
| $12x12=$348 per user/year is a steep jump up, for which I wish
| (and have pleaded with them) there to be an intermediate
| option.
| geenat wrote:
| Gitea on SQLite for the ultimate ease of setup and maintenance.
|
| Version 19 is killer- Trello style image previews on issue cards
| / kanban board!
|
| Also import/export to github / gitlab at any time.
| asah wrote:
| Does it support github actions? To me, that's the killer
| feature...
| geenat wrote:
| Github actions are supported in Gitea 19, yes.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| I'm a huge fan of Gitea but saying that GH Actions are
| supported is a bit of a stretch. Everybody asked for CI/CD
| so they started working on it and yes you can test it but
| nobody sane would use it in a production setting.
| e12e wrote:
| Wow, that's quite impressive:
|
| https://blog.gitea.io/2022/12/feature-preview-gitea-
| actions/
|
| Looks like there's still more work planned, though:
|
| https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/13539
|
| This is interesting - as I understand it gitea supports
| work flows from the github marketplace - and I had just
| made a note to try and figure out how the ruby/setup-
| ruby[1] action actually works/is implemented - and from the
| looks/claims here - I guess it should just work with gitea?
|
| [1] https://github.com/ruby/setup-ruby
| mdaniel wrote:
| https://docs.gitea.io/en-us/integrations/ says "If you're
| looking for CI/CD look at this awesome list [and good
| luck]": https://gitea.com/gitea/awesome-gitea#user-content-
| devops
|
| As far as "Github actions are supported", I seem to recall
| they're using "act" for that and this issue appears to
| match my recollection, as well as my experience with act
| being fine for hello-world but 100% absolutely not a
| replacement for a formal CI/CD system:
| https://github.com/go-
| gitea/gitea/issues/13539#issuecomment-...
|
| I will concede I have not tried keeping up with their fork
| <https://gitea.com/gitea/act> so maybe they cured all its
| ills
| tedivm wrote:
| I've been really impressed with gitea. What I'm most excited
| about though is their plans for federation. The idea of running
| my own gitea instance and being able to fork repos and make PRs
| with other instances really feels like what Git hosting
| services should be doing.
|
| https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/18240
| raro11 wrote:
| Discussed at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34996382
| remram wrote:
| Sounds like @dang should merge, those are exact duplicates
| deng wrote:
| Premium user here with ~400 seats.
|
| We will definitely have to think about moving. This just makes no
| sense at all. At least there's a transition phase with 24$, but
| that's already stretching it. Yes, they are adding features
| nobody asked for like crazy, just to be able to check more boxes
| in some feature matrix. Meanwhile, absolute basic stuff is simply
| not working or buggy as hell. Whenever I encounter a new quirk, I
| usually google for it and almost always find some years-old issue
| that is rotting away. "Advanced" search is completely useless as
| you can't really search for code. The whole CI/CD stuff
| completely falls apart once you scale things up. Just _creating_
| the pipeline takes literally _minutes_. When running a pipeline,
| I have to reload 10 times until I finally see the job variables
| (at least that one will FINALLY be fixed in 15.9). No good
| overview of what runners are busy with, no priority on runners,
| although why am I complaining about stuff like that when you can
| 't even FILTER JOBS BY NAME. And don't get me started on the
| self-hosting stuff...
|
| There was a time when GitLab was superior to GitHub. This is
| clearly no longer the case. Not a good time to increase prices.
| freedomben wrote:
| I've been a huge fan of Gitlab in the past, first for their
| open source nature and second because I felt it was a great
| product. Their CI stuff was miles ahead of everybody else and
| was a no brainer. Their main UX was (IMHO) a bit inferior to
| Github's, but once you learned it it was perfectly acceptable.
| It was sometimes very slow, but it was tolerable.
|
| But I have to agree with you. The pricing is _outrageous_. It
| was already way over-priced, now it is just insane. They shot
| themselves in the foot hard by making you buy all the things
| instead of some a la carte (which made incremental adoption
| highly expensive), and it is impossible to make a business case
| for adopting Gitlab. In addition Gitlab has gotten slower and
| less usable.
|
| I still have warm feelings for Gitlab so I hope they will hear
| this plea: Please, make your prices more competitive and
| reasonable and don't force an "all or nothing" scenario because
| you're gonna lose a lot more than you win.
| 2bluesc wrote:
| > Yes, they are adding features nobody asked for like crazy,
| just to be able to check more boxes in some feature matrix.
|
| This.
|
| If people want "DevOpsSec" then make it a feature or addon
| tier. I'm certainly in favor of more security and testing, but
| the few times I've reviewed this feature it doesn't work for
| our use case. We use external CI/CD services because Gitlab CI
| (and runners to some degree) don't do what we want. But now,
| we're forced to pay for this feature as if it helps us. Perhaps
| Gitlab can't imagine a company that doesn't build cloud
| connected software.
|
| I moved our organization of hundreds of users from Bitbucket
| years ago after a week long internal API rate limit in
| Bitbucket's infrastructure crushed our CI/CD system and took
| them way too long to acknowledge and fix (of course it wasn't
| documented). I fear this is the build-up to a similar move
| again, and I dread it. At the time Gitlab was on a much more
| impressive trajectory then Github and hence motivated my
| decision, but this has changed and it's largely self inflicted
| wound for Gitlab.
|
| Part that pains me the most is I championed the move to Gitlab
| and encouraged all the teams to double down on it over the
| years.
| jamesmontalvo3 wrote:
| Not my experience at all, in a similarly sized premium on-prem
| GitLab. I git-push and the pipeline is running faster than I
| can get to my browser. Jobs queue basically instantly assuming
| you have enough runners for your workloads.
|
| I have no experience with using the search. On both GL and GH I
| prefer to just pull the code and search with my preferred local
| tools.
|
| Personally I find GitLab CI syntax better to work with than
| GitHub, particularly if using dependency-based versus using
| stage-based workflow.
| deng wrote:
| Well, they have an epic for improving pipeline creation, so
| it's not just me:
|
| https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/7290
|
| The reason it is so slow for us is probably because we use a
| _lot_ of external includes and trigger jobs. But as I said:
| the problems start once you scale things up. Then you also
| cannot just "pull the code" for a search, as we also have a
| lot of repositories.
| styles wrote:
| I have the exact same experience.
| pastor_bob wrote:
| Caused the stock price to jump 20% over the last hour?[0]
|
| OP, if only you bought some calls instead of informing HN, you
| would have been rich.
|
| [0] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GTLB/
| jonas-w wrote:
| Can someone explain to me why it jumped *that much*?
| chatmasta wrote:
| Is it surprising? They increased the price of their primary
| product by 30% - so it should follow that their revenue
| should also increase by some similar factor (modulo whatever
| percentage of revenue is from CI minutes or the other plans
| which didn't increase in price, like - notably - the
| enterprise plan which is still $99).
|
| Based on their last Quarterly Earnings report [0], it looks
| like subscription revenue is on the order of 10:1 compared to
| other revenue.
|
| [0] https://ir.gitlab.com/news-releases/news-release-
| details/git...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-02 23:02 UTC)