[HN Gopher] Gitlab names Bill Staples as new CEO
___________________________________________________________________
Gitlab names Bill Staples as new CEO
Author : tolerable
Score : 257 points
Date : 2024-12-05 21:36 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.businesswire.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.businesswire.com)
| stavros wrote:
| I was a huge Gitlab fan until their pricing change. I don't
| remember the pricing specifics, but the tier breakdown was such
| that you could introduce GitLab for free to a company that used
| Github, use it alongside Github, and slowly switch repo by repo,
| which was a very effective strategy (I used it in a few companies
| I joined).
|
| After the pricing change, you had to start paying immediately
| (from the 6th user onwards or something), which made it a
| nonstarter because no company would start immediately paying for
| a Github replacement they didn't even know they wanted.
|
| Together with Github being priced very cheaply, plus having free
| private repos, plus having the entire OSS world on it (for my OSS
| projects), I switched to it and never looked back.
| freedomben wrote:
| Same. That pricing change was one of the dumbest moves I can
| remember from a tech company. It should be the textbook example
| of a short-term profit grab at the complete sacrifice of long-
| term strategy.
|
| I was a huge gitlab fan and would not have thought much of
| anything else, but the pricing made that impossible. The
| product has also suffered greatly as a result of the years of
| poor decision making at the top. It's one of the most
| unfortunate outcomes I can recall.
| sofixa wrote:
| > short-term profit grab
|
| They still don't make a profit. So much more a "try to become
| profitable in a changing financial landscape that will give
| us much less runway to do so" than "short-term profit grab"
| tapoxi wrote:
| Sid was diagnosed with osteosarcoma a while back, so hopefully
| he's on the road to recovery but stepping down isn't usually a
| sign things are going smoothly.
| kmbfjr wrote:
| That kind of diagnosis profoundly changes you, I know after
| having two cancer diagnoses in a year.
|
| For him, it may be bad, or it may be just realizing either
| outcome, time is short.
| Macha wrote:
| At first I saw "to focus on his health" and assumed it was
| typical PR speak to cover someone asked to leave, but the amount
| of detail on sytse's cancer makes it seem otherwise. I'd noticed
| he wasn't as often active in Gitlab related threads, and I guess
| that explains that too. Hope the recovery continues to go well.
|
| ---
|
| I do think the change in leadership is probably more a
| continuation of Gitlab moving from a developer focused company to
| one focused on enterprise sales, so the product is probably going
| to continue to feel less interesting for me. They were pretty
| innovative in how open they were, so I hope at least some of that
| survives.
| mgfist wrote:
| I don't think companies ever use "health" as cover to fire
| someone, even that is a step to far. Usually they say "personal
| reasons" or "to spend time with family", or "mutually
| beneficial" etc.. "Health" is usually something quite serious.
| tuananh wrote:
| > On today's earnings call, I am announcing that I am
| transitioning from my role as GitLab's CEO and will serve as
| the Executive Chair of the Board. I want more time to focus
| on my cancer treatment and health. My treatments are going
| well, my cancer has not metastasized, and I'm working towards
| making a full recovery. Stepping down from a role that I love
| is not easy, but I believe that it is the right decision for
| GitLab.
|
| Indeed, he has cancer.
| jedberg wrote:
| Usually when a the founding CEO of a public company steps
| into a strategic non-operations position, it's basically
| their way of saying "I'm taking the money and retiring"
| without tanking the stock by just leaving.
|
| By taking a strategic role, investors are less worried
| because they know the CEO is still around.
|
| But in this case it looks like it is legitimately a health
| reason. I hope he heals quickly.
| tuananh wrote:
| > On today's earnings call, I am announcing that I am
| transitioning from my role as GitLab's CEO and will serve as
| the Executive Chair of the Board. I want more time to focus on
| my cancer treatment and health. My treatments are going well,
| my cancer has not metastasized, and I'm working towards making
| a full recovery. Stepping down from a role that I love is not
| easy, but I believe that it is the right decision for GitLab.
|
| He has cancer.
| lolinder wrote:
| > but the amount of detail on sytse's cancer makes it seem
| otherwise. I'd noticed he wasn't as often active in Gitlab
| related threads, and I guess that explains that too. Hope the
| recovery continues to go well.
|
| OP got to that.
| beanjuiceII wrote:
| bill staples was brought on new relic to sell the company, now
| he's brought onto gitlab to do the same
| bastardoperator wrote:
| How do they intend on competing in the enterprise space? MSFT
| and Atlassian will happily bundle their SCM offering for 0
| dollars if you spend enough on licensing other core products
| like visual studio or jira.
| tolerable wrote:
| Good luck sytse. We love you!
| 1propionyl wrote:
| > What started as a collaboration tool for developers is now the
| leading AI-powered DevSecOps platform.
|
| Uh...
| tyre wrote:
| > GitLab Inc., (NASDAQ: GTLB), the most comprehensive AI-powered
| DevSecOps platform
| cedws wrote:
| The what?
| dijit wrote:
| You know... the disruptive, game-changing tech company
| redefining source code hosting for the modern enterprise.
| Their cloud-native, next-gen platform is engineered for
| scalable, seamless integration with your DevOps pipeline,
| delivering end-to-end automation and real-time collaboration.
| Powered by AI-driven insights and built for maximum uptime,
| they offer enterprise-grade security, unmatched
| interoperability, and hyper-optimized CI/CD workflows. With a
| global, distributed infrastructure, they guarantee future-
| proof performance that accelerates your agile transformation
| --because your innovation deserves nothing less than
| excellence.
|
| or.. something.
| richbell wrote:
| No single pane of glass is a deal-breaker for me, sorry.
| swozey wrote:
| They built a very nice declarative CI/CD system before Github
| Actions existed. I think I was on Bamboo (and Jenkins) before
| going over to Gitlab and it was a breath of fresh air, a huge
| understatement. 2015ish.
| AzzieElbab wrote:
| They should place their Git backend on the blockchain to
| collect all the power stones.
| cyberax wrote:
| Git is already a blockchain.
| pests wrote:
| Technically but not in terms people would describe a block
| chain. It's a chain of blocks yes, but its not the same.
| ktpsns wrote:
| Git repositories are hash trees. The distributed nature
| of git is a bit different but it shares similiarities.
| Definitly has the crypto checkmarks ticked.
| Diti wrote:
| AFAIK, the main thing that makes a blockchain a
| "blockchain" in the cryptocurrency sense, is the handling
| of consensus in case of double spend (race condition
| during a transaction), also known as Byzantine fault. Not
| really something Git has been built for.
| dysoco wrote:
| Yeah I chuckled at that
| amatuer_sodapop wrote:
| I think AI-powered is fast approaching the "webscale" status.
| eddythompson80 wrote:
| It's already there. Plenty of developer focused docs have
| been updated to mention AI however possible. I was just
| reading stripe docs, and was surprised by the number of
| fairly old features that got a doc update so instead of
| saying "For example, if you're selling a digital subscription
| with a physical item" to "For example, if you're selling
| access to an AI service with a physical item".
|
| Or replacing "For example, If you're charging for API
| requests" to "For example, If you're charging for LLama AI
| Model API requests".
|
| Heck, I had to review a doc change at work that was pretty
| stupid. Like one thing we offer is an S3-compatible endpoint.
| But someone thought we should clarify that you can upload AI
| models there too and all our docs should include an "AI
| developer" section for how to upload a blob that also happen
| to be a model or a lora or whatever.
| mattgreenrocks wrote:
| Has a real "how do you do, fellow kids?" energy to it.
| eddythompson80 wrote:
| That's exactly the feeling I got but didn't know how to
| put into words.
| Macha wrote:
| You don't happen to work at Minio do you?
|
| Because apparently Minio is for AI these days:
| https://min.io/
| eddythompson80 wrote:
| Ha that's hilarious! And no I work at another tech
| company, but I totally understand how minio decided to go
| with that marketing. It's really infuriating and yet
| understandable.
|
| When the AI craze stated, so many people in my company
| came to me asking "if we can run AI workload"? _another
| thing we offer is fairly generic compute meant for your
| average web applications or micro service etc._ Initially
| I said "I don't think so. We don't have GPUs nor do we
| have any ability to express hardware requirements beyond
| CPU and Memory. We'll need to do some work to include GPU
| into that".
|
| Then hilariously I learned that you don't need GPUs or
| ASICs to be able to run "AI workloads". If your compute
| allows you to call OpenAI rest APIs, then you're also "AI
| Ready".
| labster wrote:
| GTLB is perfect for ESG investing because it's powered entirely
| from hot air generated by buzzwords.
| keyle wrote:
| Thanks for pointing that out, that made me gulp and I'm not
| even sure what 'Sec' they're talking about seeing they were
| recently featured in a defcon talk.
| vundercind wrote:
| To be fair, having the "Sec" in your "DevSecOps" signify
| _nothing whatsoever_ is basically the industry standard for
| companies describing their offerings with that term.
| HdS84 wrote:
| They have a sast scanner offering..we tried to use it Basic
| thinks like "ignore this slew of reporting because the build
| is already deprecated" or "always ignore this error, false
| positive" are missing. The last few years gitlab only did
| marketing checklist driven development.
| jamesfinlayson wrote:
| Yes, I've used it and the behaviour that we saw was it
| reporting every issue that had been in the repo ever
| (including in files that had been deleted). Which I suppose
| you might want, but every other scanning tool I've used
| chose the sensible default of scan what is there now.
|
| Also, as far as I can, the security centre wouldn't let you
| download a .csv of current security issues in the repo -
| the UI lets you do a bunch of filtering, but the .csv
| always gives you everything, including issues that you've
| closed.
| HdS84 wrote:
| It's even worse when you scan your build artifacts, in
| our case containers. Each build added to the list , with
| no way to delete all stuff. Filtering and grouping are
| also missing.
|
| We gave up on that and decided to use another tool.
|
| My gripe with GL is that all features are like this now.
| There is no invest into the basic building blocks, just
| yapping for the next trend. Most customers for GL use it
| on premise because they want to use it on prem. I would
| focus on Features that benefit that crowd, but hey I am
| just an developing not a gilded c suite.
| nojs wrote:
| It's the tagline in the hero shot on their homepage too.
| tqi wrote:
| Sounds like Gitlab hired the "Category Design Advisors" from
| Play Bigger LLC...
| aestetix wrote:
| Maybe now they will change their stupid pricing plan and let
| people pay monthly.
|
| Edit: I did not see before that Sid had cancer. I send him wishes
| for a good recovery!
| jlengrand wrote:
| "Not CEO of Gitlab here", for those who have been here long
| enough to recognize this. Really hope you're doing ok buddy.
| burnte wrote:
| They would have hired Bill Posters but he's being prosecuted.
| danryan wrote:
| Bill Posters is innocent!
| griomnib wrote:
| The photos look like an AI was given the prompt "tech ceo,
| headshot, for press release".
| Lammy wrote:
| 50/50 chance to generate one looking directly at the camera, or
| one in 3/4 view where one hand is holding a microphone with the
| other palm extended toward unseen audience.
| griomnib wrote:
| "Hands or GTFO" is the new "PoC or GTFO".
| luuurker wrote:
| Cancer... hope the treatment is working well and wish you a full
| recovery.
| sqs wrote:
| Congratulations and thank you to Sid, the GitLab CEO, for
| building an incredible company and product.
|
| GitLab was the first code host to add more products (CI,
| security, ops, helpdesk, analytics, etc.) and create a whole
| suite, and GitHub followed. GitLab also built for the enterprise
| years before GitHub started to give appropriate love to the
| enterprise. Some people think that GitLab is a GitHub clone.
| Quite the opposite!
|
| Even if you don't use GitLab yourself, you've been a huge
| beneficiary of the dev workflow GitLab envisioned and created,
| and of the competition they've given to Microsoft/GitHub.
| Competition in this space makes everything better.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Indeed. Github Actions runs because GitLab CI walked and Travis
| crawled. There's a clear evolution through line with how each
| laid the groundwork for the successor.
| benatkin wrote:
| I disagree that GitHub Actions is much more powerful than
| GitLab. Both can be helped by a YC company, depot.dev, if you
| literally mean running containers quickly and reliably.
| GitHub Actions _can_ be easier to set up if you like having
| stuff outside of your repo and an OCI image. GitLab may not
| have the actions library that GitHub has but it can pull
| docker images and that's a powerful build library.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Ah interesting, yeah the whole container build -> CI build
| has been a long-standing paint point for me across Github,
| GitLab, and even Jenkins. I will investigate what depot.dev
| is doing.... cause yeah, proper and intelligent on-demand
| rebuilding of based containers could be a game changer.
| kylegalbraith wrote:
| One of the founders of Depot here. Always feel free to
| ping me directly (email in my bio) if you ever want to
| chat more about container builds in general.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| For sure! I've always felt like a bit of a loner in that
| the assumption in most of these platforms is that your
| build starts with either something barebones (just apt)
| or maybe your platform only (python3:latest).
|
| However, I've typically dealt with builds that have a
| very heavy dependency load (10-20GB) where it isn't
| desirable to install everything every time-- I'd rather
| have an intermediate "deps" container that the build can
| start from. But I don't want to have to manually
| lifecycle that container; if I have a manifest of what's
| in my apt repo vs the current container, it should just
| know automatically when a container rebuild is required.
| hardwaresofton wrote:
| > GitLab was the first code host to add more products (CI,
| security, ops, helpdesk, analytics, etc.) and create a whole
| suite, and GitHub followed.
|
| Disclaimer: I've worked with Sid and his team in the past.
|
| Few people realize how long it's been since GitLab was a simple
| clone -- there has been a ton of legitimate net new innovation,
| and that happened under Sid (and of course all the awesome
| people working at GitLab).
|
| Another thing that's actually insanely under-discussed is how
| openly GitLab runs and how that's been a _successful_ model for
| them. I 'm not sure I know another open core company that has
| been so successful in the space of developers who bend over
| backwards to pay nothing and spend hours of their own time
| (read $$$$$) to host their own <X>.
|
| IMO they are the only credible competitor to GitHub, and
| they're open core, huge open source orgs, small companies, and
| large companies trust them (rightfully so), and they've built
| this all while being incredibly open and to this day you can
| still self-host their core software (which is a force
| multiplier for software companies).
| jeroenhd wrote:
| Gitlab used to stand alone in the "Github replacement"
| market, but these days Gitea is quickly closing in on them. I
| hope the competition will drive Gitlab to continue to
| compete, but the switch to "AI everything" makes me weary for
| its future.
|
| Without Gitlab, Github would've taken years, maybe even
| longer, to develop what it has become today. I don't think
| Gitea and its forks would exist.
|
| Now if only Github would go the extra mile and copy another
| feature from Gitlab (IPv6 support)...
| itronitron wrote:
| GitLab is currently marketing itself as the "AI-powered
| DevSecOps platform" which in my view ditches it's
| history/brand as an open and transparent alternative to
| GitHub.
| whazor wrote:
| But GitHub enterprise is not a great product. So the other
| around, I wouldn't want to call Github a credible competitor
| to Gitlab.
| Narretz wrote:
| > GitLab Inc., (NASDAQ: GTLB), the most comprehensive AI-powered
| DevSecOps platform
|
| Oh, that description explains why the core pipeline authoring and
| capabilities have made almost no progress in the last few years.
| I actually thought gitlab still branded itself as a "classic" dev
| ops tool.
| griomnib wrote:
| I was actually looking at them as a GitHub alternative and
| their homepage has so much vaporware AI BS on it that's as far
| as I got.
|
| Ironically I was very open to paying for a service, but the "AI
| AI AI!" lost them at least one sale.
| lolinder wrote:
| This press release makes a big deal out of them counting
| "more than 50% of the Fortune 100" as customers, which goes a
| long way towards explaining their decline in favor among
| devs. They're not interested in your sale any more, they're
| only interested in large enterprises, and are apparently
| doing very well in that market.
| stackskipton wrote:
| I doubt 50% of Fortune 100 customers are all in on GitLab.
| My guess is most of their F100 customers are acquisitions
| that were using Gitlab and continue to use Gitlab.
|
| When my company was acquired by $MegaCorp, I noted one of
| vendors was like "trusted by $MegaCorp" because yes
| technically, they got a check from $MegaCorp but $MegaCorp
| was not interested in becoming further customer.
| scaryclam wrote:
| Or one or two devs in the F100 customers made an account
| using their work email so they could chuck some OSS
| prototype code somewhere, or test something out.
| jamesfinlayson wrote:
| Yes I've seen it a place I've worked - GitLab is pushing hard
| on AI right now, and I don't believe it's cheap either.
|
| Ironically, the JetBrains autocomplete is better than their
| DUO plugin - JetBrains is faster and the GitLab plugin causes
| my IDE to completely lock up at least once a day.
| itronitron wrote:
| I was at a 'techtalk' recently with over 100 attendees, where
| Gitlab was a sponsor and the second of two talks. Before
| either talk the GitLab person gave a short pitch on the whole
| GitLab AI developer productivity vision and how great they
| are.
|
| There was a short break after the first talk concluded during
| which about a third of the attendees left, myself included.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| I am confused. What is the lesson to be learnt here? Did
| the last two talks look boring? ... And that is why you
| left? Were people annoyed with pre-talk pitch by GitLab?
| an-honest-moose wrote:
| People heard the AI spiel and lost interest.
| vundercind wrote:
| Wow. Almost none of those words would have even been among my
| third-string choices of words to use to describe gitlab in one
| short sentence. "The" and "platform" might have made it.
| remram wrote:
| "The _other_ code hosting platform "?
| vundercind wrote:
| "GitHub for if you compete with MS and someone high in your
| org is concerned about letting MS host your code."
|
| "GitHub with a worse UI except GitHub's has been getting
| worse for years so now they're both similarly bad so never
| mind"
|
| "Worse gitea but with more features so sometimes it's
| better"
| jamesfinlayson wrote:
| Having used GitLab Enterprise, I'd describe it as having
| 99% of the features that you could ever want, but those
| features are generally executed no more than 75% well.
| remram wrote:
| Or search. What a useless devops platform if you can't find
| issue by searching for words that appear in comments. Only
| words appearing in the issue title/description are found and
| this is infuriating every day.
|
| Can't believe they'd put "AI-powered" there when it can't even
| be used to find exact word matches.
| whatsakandr wrote:
| I used to think gitlab was the bees knees, but more recently
| there's just a lack of user awareness. They've had a open issue
| for years about failing a job due to not finding artifacts. The
| logs even say "ERROR" I've concluded they're now a marketing
| organization.
| HdS84 wrote:
| It's normal to Google "how to do x in gitlab" and then there
| is a ticker in their issue tracker to add x from 2018. GL
| employees all agrees that it would be great. Thrn there are
| 374747 label changes and no resolution until today.
| usr1106 wrote:
| While this is not a completely wrong observation, it's
| worse for Atlassian BitBucket. With github I have no
| experience.
| progval wrote:
| This is common for huge open source projects. However, when
| you send a patch to Gitlab, they will assign someone to guide
| you through the process, and the patch will be merged
| eventually unless you bail out or they outright reject it.
| progval wrote:
| That's copy-pasted from https://about.gitlab.com/ .
|
| I love that it implies there is a more comprehensive DevSecOps
| platform that isn't AI-powered.
| VulgarExigency wrote:
| He's the former CEO of Staples. He's going to have to change his
| name to Bill Gitlab.
| lawik wrote:
| Already standard practice for fighters in Muay Thai. Don't see
| why CEOs shouldn't show their loyalty.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| He's not the former CEO of Staples - where did you find that
| information?
| CarVac wrote:
| It's a Tim Apple joke.
| VulgarExigency wrote:
| I made it up
| benatkin wrote:
| A very reliable source!
| redeux wrote:
| So, do we think Staples and the board intend to sell Gitlab to
| private equity like New Relic?
| guybrush0123 wrote:
| > As CEO at New Relic, Staples' strategic leadership and deep
| product knowledge significantly increased the company's
| enterprise value. By accelerating revenue and driving increased
| profitability, he made New Relic one of the most broadly adopted
| platforms in its category. Staples has nearly 30 years of
| experience building developer platforms and serving developers as
| customers. Prior to New Relic, he spent many years at Microsoft
| and Adobe in executive leadership roles, building and scaling
| several multi-billion-dollar businesses.
|
| On a burner account as I am a New Relic employee.
|
| Bill Staples was a nice enough guy, but at New Relic he was
| specifically brought in as CEO to get the company prepared to be
| sold. Which is the _exact_ same thing he did at Marketo before
| that.
|
| He has no relevant tech experience, except when it comes to
| preparing a company to be sold in the next 2-3 years.
| njtransit wrote:
| Rumors are that Gitlab is for sale, so the move might make
| sense in that regard.
| nyclounge wrote:
| Time to jump ship to codeberg/gitea? What are non commercial
| git repos now days?
| freedomben wrote:
| I'll wait to jump ship until I see who buys them. It could
| end up being a huge positive for a gitlab. I have been very
| disappointed in their strategy the past few years and I
| think they squandered an enormous opportunity and amount of
| Goodwill with developers. If they got bought by somebody
| good, then I think it could end up being a massive
| positive.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| yeah, the product is great, but the pricing is a mess. If
| whoever buys it sorts that out it could be a win.
| Gigachad wrote:
| Microsoft buying GitHub seemed to be a huge benefit to
| GitHub at least.
| Normal_gaussian wrote:
| GitHub was in an odd position; HR had politically
| captured every department. A buyout by someone so big was
| pretty much the only way to do it.
| srik wrote:
| > HR had politically captured every department
|
| Could you elaborate if you can?
| Lammy wrote:
| https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/follow-up-
| to-...
| rurp wrote:
| I used Gitlab at a previous job maybe four years ago and
| really liked the UI. Switching to Github at the new gig
| felt like a huge step backwards. That said, the product
| and business news I have seen regarding Gitlab since then
| has almost all been negative. Hopefully they are able to
| turn things around because at one point I really hoped
| they would overtake Github and thought it might happen.
| thinkyfish wrote:
| Forgejo jumps to mind.
| ksp-atlas wrote:
| Gitea became for profit, there's still a non profit fork
| called Forgejo which has become fairly popular
| noirscape wrote:
| To elaborate a bit more; first things first - Gitea is
| still MIT and open source. Not open core, full open
| source.
|
| The main reason for Forgejo is moreso that Gitea as a
| project was taken over by a company instead of being run
| as a non-profit. Some of the dev team felt uncomfortable
| with that and forked it.
|
| Personally I haven't seen much reason to switch from
| Gitea to Forgejo - this is the sort of ideological issue
| that I'd rather kick the can down the road on until Gitea
| Ltd goes bad (and in an assumption of good faith, I'll
| assume that it won't.)
|
| It's not _that_ difficult to move git repositories around
| after all.
| a2128 wrote:
| The ideological difference between the two projects
| really shows on their landing pages. Forgejo has a cute
| fox drawn by a real artist whose name is credited in the
| website's footer; Gitea has AI-generated images of a
| robot in the clouds or in a skyline (it becomes really
| obvious when you look close)
| Matumio wrote:
| Indeed. And the cute fox almost doesn't need the credits.
| When you recognize David Revoy's style on a project page,
| you know the project is probably a community-driven
| effort, and is worth checking out if you value that.
| nyclounge wrote:
| Thank you for sharing this. It make a huge difference for
| when we are choosing!
| joachimma wrote:
| Does anyone know why gitea is developed on GitHub?
| teraflop wrote:
| See this issue: https://github.com/go-
| gitea/gitea/issues/1029
|
| For years, "self-hosting" Gitea wasn't done because it
| was missing a bunch of useful collaboration features.
| Now, it looks like that gap has been closed. All of the
| specific features mentioned in that issue seem to have
| been fixed, and the big remaining task is figuring out
| below to actually migrate all the existing data out of
| GitHub -- which doesn't seem to be super high on the
| priority list.
| adastra22 wrote:
| Who would buy it?
| codegeek wrote:
| Microsoft :)
| manquer wrote:
| Won't be allowed ? They already own GitHub
| cocoa19 wrote:
| Would make no sense. They already own the most popular
| service, owning the second one may bring monopoly
| scrutiny.
| jmclnx wrote:
| Maybe IBM since I think Gnome and a few other large
| projects moved there. Plus since AI is all the rage, I can
| see someone picking it up.
|
| The main question is probably the price.
| freedomben wrote:
| I was thinking about that as well, given that it seems it
| would fit in well with the red hat portfolio. They don't
| as far as I know. Have a good answer for a gitforge, and
| the phenomenal CI CD offering that gitlab has would be
| very marketable to Red hat customers.
|
| I would be excited if IBM acquired them and put them
| under the red hat umbrella, because as history has shown,
| it may mean that gitlab ends up becoming much more open.
| They may open up the entire product instead of doing the
| open core model.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| Please correct me if wrong. Red Hat has OpenShift Cloud,
| which I think has Git repo hosting, including CI/CD.
| manquer wrote:
| Many options , older companies like IBM, Google, SAP,
| Oracle or even Salesforce (already own heroku in dev
| tooling space so not far fetched ) with stable or slowing
| market presence in engineering departments
|
| Mid sized newer companies likes Hashicorp or datadog or
| vercel who target developers as customers .
|
| Gitlab gives access to a large audience of developers to
| cross sell most dev tools so all these orgs can get a lot
| of returns paying more than the standalone value of gitlab
| itself.
|
| The best fit would be companies like Hashicorp who have
| strong open source pedigree so users won't be turned off
| and leave
| breadandcheese wrote:
| Did I miss something? Didn't IBM acquire Hashicorp?
| manquer wrote:
| Yes they did, i should have clarified, as IBM is becoming
| like Broadcom as an umbrella organization for all sorts
| of companies, the ibm core is different beast than some
| of the acquisitions they have been making
|
| In my mind just like LinkedIn , GitHub and Microsoft are
| every distinct entities with a lot of differences on how
| they work , Hashicorp and IBM parent are different and
| will remain so. Integrating into Hashicorp for Gitlab
| would be very different than integrating into IBM core
| with different values for both businesses .
| firesteelrain wrote:
| GitLab Premium already integrates with HashiCorp Vault
| [1]
|
| GitLab supports storing the Terraform state and includes
| Terraform templates however they are moving to OpenTofu
| in 18.x [2]
|
| 1. https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/ci/secrets/hashicorp_vault.
| html 2.
| https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/update/deprecations.html
| manquer wrote:
| I wasn't thinking about a few focused features or
| integrations, but more generally. i.e non product things
| like sales and license packaging and son on.
|
| If an acquisition has to make sense there should be a
| clear path to monetize it, for IBM core or its HashiCorp
| unit or any other buyer that will not just be through
| some light integrations alone, they can achieved with
| partnerships after all you don't need to buy the
| organization for it.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| Agree. What did you have in mind? The two products are
| already lightly integrated.
| susanthenerd wrote:
| > The best fit would be companies like Hashicorp who have
| strong open source pedigree so users won't be turned off
| and leave
|
| HashiCorp might not be the best fit anymore. Last year,
| they switched to a license that isn't open source:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37081306
| bigfatkitten wrote:
| Salesforce let Heroku wither and die. I don't see them
| sticking their toes into the dev tooling space again
| anytime soon.
| aravindputrevu wrote:
| Google should do it. If some CorpDev of theirs are
| listening. This could be their Satya Nadella <> GitHib
| moment to bring back the lost shine.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| This makes a lot of sense, and is truly frightening.
|
| Google isn't know for its hands-off approach nor long
| term view for service growths. Gitlab is essential to
| balance Github's impact, I'd hate it to go in the
| graveyard.
| guybrush0123 wrote:
| The official rumor is DataDog:
|
| https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/google-backed-
| software...
|
| Given New Relic is a direct competitor, Bill Staples'
| background makes even more sense.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Why? And why would Gitlab be worth $8billion?
|
| I seriously don't understand the deals being made in
| tech. Most of the makes no sense, not even
| retrospectively. I get Microsoft buying Github, that was
| a part of their open source strategy and they've always
| put a high value on developers.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> why would Gitlab be worth $8billion?_
|
| I wouldn't buy them for that myself, but Gitlab made $200
| million in revenue in Q3 2024 [1]. So $800 million a year
| in revenue.
|
| I've seen worse purchases.
|
| [1] https://ir.gitlab.com/news/news-details/2024/GitLab-
| Reports-...
| mrweasel wrote:
| The way the present their numbers is pretty hard to
| understand, at least for me, did they lose $28million or
| make $28million in that same quarter? Either way that
| seems insanely low, if they're expected to be worth
| $8billion. The gap between profit and revenue seems to
| high.
|
| There might be some potential for Gitlab complement your
| other business, in which case you may not see the lack of
| profit as that big of an issue. The problem is that if
| you can't make those $8billions back in future profit,
| then you're going to start making changes to the Gitlab
| offerings until they do become profitable.
|
| That might be what the new CEO is suppose to do, pump up
| those numbers, and make it look like a sane investment.
| clhodapp wrote:
| Atlassian?
| n_ary wrote:
| They have Bitbucket already.
| rickette wrote:
| Most of these sales aren't about acquiring a product but
| about acquiring a customer base, so it would make perfect
| sense for Atlassian IMHO.
| 2000swebgeek wrote:
| I think its right time for AWS to buy.
|
| AWS shut down their service, if AWS can "easily" integrate
| with Gitlab, I see a lot of potential on the deployment
| side to increase AWS revenue.
| N19PEDL2 wrote:
| I sincerely hope it's not Broadcom. A 10x price increase
| would scare away a lot of customers.
| jmclnx wrote:
| Yes, I heard this rumor right after I moved from github to
| gitlab. Well if I have to go elsewhere at least gitlab will
| archive my abandoned free account for me :)
|
| FWIW, I found them easier to deal wit than github, so will
| hang tight to see how this plays out.
| addicted wrote:
| I'm curious why you would move to Gitlab.
|
| Nothing they've done since they were created has ever moved
| them in a more open source friendly direction, and they've
| broken a ton of promises both implicit and explicit along
| the way.
|
| GitHub OTOH has only become more open source friendly
| (minus the AI stuff, but I suspect Gitlab is no better on
| that front).
| gbear605 wrote:
| In my experience, Gitlab is a lot more stable than
| Github. My last job was on Github, and we had an outage a
| couple times a month at least. We even had a Slack emote
| for it! My current job is on Gitlab, and we haven't had a
| single outage in the year that we've been on them.
| elcritch wrote:
| Second that. My job before last moved to a locally hosted
| enterprise Github instance, which promptly ate itself.
| The specs required to run it were also impressive,
| something like 64gb minimum to boot but more was strongly
| recommended.
| not_your_vase wrote:
| Haha, I keep getting burned by GitHub outages even as a
| private contributor with my personal account... speaking
| of which, I expect one outage soon, this week so far it
| has been available always when I needed it...
| jraph wrote:
| What are you referring to?
|
| Gitlab is open core, (not great but better than nothing)
| while github is zero open source.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| You can't self host Github.
| eliaspro wrote:
| You can (Github Enterprise)!
| elcritch wrote:
| If you're brave!
| flohofwoe wrote:
| One feature area where Gitlab is still better for
| realworld stuff is CI (Gitlab CI vs Github Actions). Yes,
| you can do most things on both, but Gitlab CI makes a lot
| more sense.
|
| In general, Github still feels like it's built for hobby
| coders (focusing on simplicity instead of configurability
| - which doesn't have to be a bad thing) while Gitlab
| feels like it's built for professional teams from the
| ground up.
| usr1106 wrote:
| I have used Gitlab CI basically daily for over 5 years
| and it makes sense. I would need to think hard to come up
| with something that seems fundamentally wrong.
|
| I have never used Github Actions. Can you explain or give
| some examples what doesn't make sense?
| plantain wrote:
| Try and test a Github Action locally - it's an
| engineering project up there with the Space Shuttle.
| Repositories around the world are filled with endless
| commits of "test1", "test2", "test3" trying to debug
| their actions in prod.
| pid-1 wrote:
| That particular issue also exists in GitLab. See
| https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-runner/-/issues/2797
| imp0cat wrote:
| Right, but Gitlab does have the excellent built-in
| pipeline editor that will visualize and validate your
| pipelines for you.
|
| It can also render the complete pipeline config (making
| it easy to run and debug the problematic parts locally
| just by copying the relevant parts, even if they're
| hidden in and include somewhere).
| flohofwoe wrote:
| IIRC Github Actions started as a 'visual editor' where
| you would drop and arrange 'Actions' and define the data
| flow between actions, but what most people want from a CI
| system is just a script/config file in their git repo
| which defines what command line tools to run, and to
| group those commands in jobs dependending on each other
| so that some jobs can run in parallel (which Github
| Actions only implemented as an afterthought after users
| demanded it).
|
| To reuse code, Gitlab CI has simple template files which
| you can import into your toplevel .gitlab-ci.yml, and you
| have an inheritance system to derive new jobs from other
| jobs. That's a very simple and powerful system.
|
| Code reuse in Github works with above mentioned 'actions'
| where each action seems to be a whole repository of stuff
| instead of a single file like in Gitlab CI.
|
| Gitlab CI seems to be designed by people who know what
| they do and what their users need, while Github Actions
| seems to be designed by architecture astronauts, and has
| only afterwards and reluctantly been hammered into a
| shape where it does the things most users expect.
| noirscape wrote:
| GitHub Actions feels like it was first designed to let
| people customize the GitHub Pages deploy flow (since
| GitHub by default only offered Jekyll as a static site
| generator, and Jekyll is Ruby tooling and not lightweight
| to run at all) and as a CI tool second, being molded into
| behaving like one after Travis CI went bad for open
| source projects.
|
| Gitlab CI actually seems like it was made for CI in the
| first place.
| miohtama wrote:
| GitHub Actions is rebranded Microsoft Azure product AFAIK
| omcnoe wrote:
| If I remember correctly GitHub CI is pretty much a
| straight port of Microsoft's existing Azure DevOps CI,
| done pretty soon after the acquisition. The rest of Azure
| DevOps UX is kinda insane so it's no surprise the CI is a
| bit of a pain too.
| DanielHB wrote:
| And Github Actions is somehow superior to CircleCI in
| many ways!
| cmgbhm wrote:
| Understanding how tokens get passed around. The pattern
| in Gitlab seems to be much more explicit.
|
| Protected branches and associated secrets. Much cleaner
| construct on gitlab.
|
| GitHub actions defacto seems to be tracing yaml to
| compiled JavaScript to hopefully that right source to
| shell commands.
|
| Gitlab seems to be yaml to shell commands.
|
| Nested projects. Nice midspot between monorepo and access
| control management.
|
| API. I may be out of date on it but I recall the gitlab
| apis as pretty sensible. The github apis for
| administration has a very odd rest/graphql split.
| mhh__ wrote:
| I find them both equally bad just in different ways.
|
| Compare the gitlab UI with phabricator for example. The
| workflows are mostly a strange mixture of whatever github
| made up on the back of a napkin and Stakeholder-
| consultant slop.
| mathstuf wrote:
| GitLab has accepted my patches...do you have a timeline
| for when Github will do the same? Sure, maybe the
| directions are different, but the baselines couldn't be
| more different either.
| robin_reala wrote:
| I recently had a GitHub patch accepted:
| https://github.com/primer/css/pull/2680
| mathstuf wrote:
| Neat...though considering how far removed it is from the
| actual behaviors of the forge rather than things that are
| essentially "bikeshed topics", I'm still not very
| convinced that Github is even in the same league as
| GitLab in "OSS friendliness".
| imp0cat wrote:
| I may be biased, but one of the reasons probably is that
| it's not Microsoft.
| sofixa wrote:
| GitHub is open source friendly on paper, but almost
| nothing they do is actually open source, or even source
| available. Contrast that to GitLab who are actually open
| core, and the vast majority of their software if publicly
| available for free with a very permissive license.
|
| One talks about open source because it's the de facto
| home of open source. The other is actually open source.
| edm0nd wrote:
| I'm curious, why did you make such a move? Seems like it
| would be way better to work for Github and then try to
| bounce to somewhere inside MS instead.
| javawizard wrote:
| I'm pretty sure GP is referring to moving between GitHub
| and GitLab as repository hosts, not as employers.
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| How does this make sense? Gitlab is a public company, it's
| already for sale to anyone.
| sgt wrote:
| A lot more goes into selling a company or a controlling
| share. All the ducks in a row and the company really needs
| to prove that it is worth X price.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Gitlab is a publicly traded company, it's literally been for
| sale to anyone who wants it for 3 years.
|
| If you made an offer to buy it for ~$15B right now, the board
| would basically have to approve the sale.
| woah wrote:
| What needs to be done to prepare it for sale?
| griomnib wrote:
| Slash costs/headcount in short term, sell, pocket the cash
| and get the hell out of dodge.
| guybrush0123 wrote:
| Not _necessarily_. If you want the best price for the
| company, you might want to grow it before you sell it.
|
| New Relic went through a few reorgs during his tenure, but
| they didn't freeze hiring until after the sale.
| griomnib wrote:
| Fair, hopefully the gitlab employees won't get _totally_
| screwed!
| bastardoperator wrote:
| They hired an axe man, people are getting hurt.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| Produce attractive numbers. Often by cutting costs.
| colechristensen wrote:
| There are plenty of due-diligence internal things that need
| to be put in order to make your company attractive.
| Processes, documentation, compliance, etc.
|
| Then there are things like having roadmaps for the future to
| make you look attractive.
|
| Then there are vulture things to make your numbers look good
| which can range from doing neglected cleanups of actually
| unnecessary costs to cutting costs in ways that really suck
| for customers and employees.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Aside from things mentioned by others: Having a network to
| potential buyers.
| echelon wrote:
| GitLab doesn't really make sense as an independent company.
|
| Horrific outcomes: Atlassian, Oracle, or IBM buys it.
|
| Great outcomes: Google, Amazon, or JetBrains ($7B private
| valuation) buys it.
| griomnib wrote:
| Eh, Google it goes to the graveyard (rip Google code), Amazon
| it gets buried, JetBrains would be cool tho.
| adastra22 wrote:
| Better comparison for Google would be YouTube.
| griomnib wrote:
| Yes but that's also pre-Sundar Google when there was some
| semblance of vision. Now that Ruth runs the company
| behind the scenes with a vision timeline that is measured
| in exactly 3 month increments...well, good luck.
| echelon wrote:
| Some of Google's best business units were acquisitions.
|
| YouTube, Google Maps/Earth, Android, DoubeClick, DeepMind,
| Firebase, HTC (Pixel)
|
| Don't discount Google's M&A game.
| griomnib wrote:
| They kill more than they allow to live, and doubleclick
| slowly hollowed out Google search by skewing incentives
| away from great content to maximizing display revenue via
| link bait.
|
| Doubleclick is to Google what McDonald Douglas's is to
| Boeing.
| mrpippy wrote:
| Don't forget Docs (Wordly)
| evilduck wrote:
| Are any of those from the last decade? They acquired them
| when they were a different company.
| acdha wrote:
| Amazon has an okay but underwhelming developer suite. If
| they bought Gitlab and did nothing other than say that they
| should have first class support for AWS deployments it'd be
| a good move, and that's before you consider things like
| pivoting Gitlab's struggling AI tools to theirs or aligning
| all of the supply-chain stuff big companies want.
| jonstewart wrote:
| CodeBuild asks so much and gives so little.
| cmckn wrote:
| CodeCommit is on the way out, onboarding was disabled
| over the summer.
|
| https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/devops/how-to-migrate-your-
| aws-...
| morgante wrote:
| I wouldn't consign it to the graveyard that quickly.
|
| It's a lot easier/more common for Google to kill internal
| projects and small acquisitions.
|
| A $16B write-down is far less likely, especially when many
| Googlers internally realize how much a threat Microsoft is
| with GitHub + VS Code.
| BadHumans wrote:
| JetBrains buying it would be out of left field but makes
| sense in some sense and would be the best possible outcome.
| Macha wrote:
| I'm not sure if Jetbrains is bigger than I expected or
| Gitlab smaller, but it feels to me that Jetbrains wouldn't
| be able to afford Gitlab.
| reaperman wrote:
| It would be roughly a merger of equals (1-2 billion
| either direction), and I'm not sure how that could be
| financed without JetBrains giving up too much control
| over their own existing company. Perhaps a bank could
| extend a private loan if they believed in JetBrains
| ability to use the merger to grow both sides of the
| merged company.
| vasco wrote:
| Gitlab is worth $10B on the public market right now
| without an acquisition premium. You're very far.
| brobdingnagians wrote:
| Jetbrains decided to go from the Space product to a cut
| down Space Code product with just code review and git
| hosting, but then this last week announced they will be
| shuttering even that next year. I doubt they want to get
| back into the git hosting, if they did by buying GitLab,
| that would be odd.
| freedomben wrote:
| I certainly agree that a horrible outcome would be if
| atlassian or Oracle buys it, but IBM? If IBM acquires and
| puts it under the red hat umbrella, they have a history of
| opening up products that were previously more closed.
| Considering what they did with ansible, for example, would be
| amazing for gitlab.
| angelaguilera wrote:
| > If IBM acquires and puts it under the red hat umbrella,
| they have a history of opening up products that were
| previously more closed.
|
| As a former CentOS user, I politely disagree with this.
| freedomben wrote:
| I appreciate the politeness :-)
|
| Good point, red hat is far from perfect. The way they
| handled cent was incredibly disappointing.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| Atlassian has their own Cloud offerings and their data center
| versions of Jira, BitBucket and Confluence are very good.
|
| I don't see GitLab replacing BitBucket.
| acdha wrote:
| They've been pushing customers to their cloud versions
| pretty hard and holding back features. Jira and Confluence
| are decent but BitBucket is like time-traveling back to
| 2010. We migrated to GitLab with unanimous enthusiasm - so
| many new features, so many things worked better - and that
| decision felt better as the years passed where we'd get "is
| anyone working on this?" updates on the Atlassian tickets
| for missing BitBucket features which had been years old
| when I'd voted for them.
| firesteelrain wrote:
| Our developers want GitLab because it means replacing
| Bamboo which is an OK product but we have hundreds of
| build agents that don't scale for on prem. Each agent is
| a VM running on VMWare. The pipeline's are so much
| better.
|
| But GitLab price annually for the same amount of users
| that we have for Bamboo and BitBucket is higher in
| licensing fees. We have to do things self hosted because
| of regulatory and compliance reasons.
|
| There is probably a business case to be made for the
| inefficiency that we see with Bamboo.
|
| BitBucket DC is pretty solid and never goes down. It
| integrates well with all the other Atlassian products
| like Jira or Confluence. Our instance is also highly
| available and fault tolerant.
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| Jetbrains already has TeamCity and Youtrack
| apocalyptic0n3 wrote:
| They also had Space (discontinued in May) and Space Code
| (discontinued last week). I don't think GitLab makes much
| sense for them
| mrweasel wrote:
| Why would Google want it? They shutdown Google code and
| Amazon is shutting down CodeCommit.
|
| I think it would make more sense for a number of companies to
| invest in Gitlab, to ensure that there is a 3rd. party tool
| available, as to not "force" users into the hands of Github
| and Microsoft.
|
| That's probably the best case, Google, Amazon, IBM, JetBrains
| and a few others create a company, with themselves on the
| board, and tasks that company with buying and running Gitlab.
| Having Google alone buy it and you may as well just migrate
| now pending the inevitable disinterest and shutdown. So I
| guess that I disagree, Gitlab makes more sense as an
| independent company, that it does as part of companies that
| already had failed competing products.
|
| My guess is the ever popular MicroFocus (Now OpenText) who
| will buy everything that it on the edge of popularity.
| xeonmc wrote:
| Bill Staples was a nice enough guy, but at New Relic he was
| specifically brought in as CEO to get the company prepared to
| be sold. Which is the exact same thing he did at Marketo before
| that. He has no relevant tech experience, except when
| it comes to preparing a company to be sold in the next 2-3
| years.
|
| So he essentially functioned as a company's bill-staples for
| its assets?
| paulcole wrote:
| > He has no relevant tech experience, except when it comes to
| preparing a company to be sold in the next 2-3 years.
|
| So other than his relevant experience he has not relevant
| experience?
| antics wrote:
| > He has no relevant tech experience, except when it comes to
| preparing a company to be sold in the next 2-3 years.
|
| I think a lot of people would say this is not true. I worked
| with Bill a little at Microsoft, where he ran an x,000-person
| engineering org, and my experience was that he was a competent,
| detail-oriented, product-focused leader. You might disagree
| but, in any event, running an x,000-person org in a large tech
| company does qualify you for CEO positions, at least in the
| eyes of people who make those decisions.
| paulddraper wrote:
| Yeah that's pretty relevant tech experience.
|
| Not sure how much more relevant you can get....
| anotheranon867 wrote:
| He was fired from the same org. Several of his direct reports
| were also fired. He spent years trying to cover up major
| mistakes and oversights, and finally got caught red handed
| without anyone left to scapegoat. It wasn't to an Elizabeth
| Holmes level, but he wasn't that far away either.
|
| This isn't secondhand either. I witnessed him multiple times
| telling reports to bury findings, stop research that made the
| product look bad, and actively prevent anyone from going over
| his head to higher leadership.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| That was my immediate thought. Congrats to gitlab
| xyst wrote:
| What a shame. A literal hatchet man
| rkhleung wrote:
| Not necessarily. In my experience, getting the right person
| to prepare a company for an IPO or a sale is hard. Most
| buyers will do due diligence and besides 'slashing costs' and
| 'growing the company', there is a skill set for getting
| governance and compliance practices in place and as well as
| leading the roadshow for the sale which has some similarities
| to raising private capital. For instance, if you don't
| already have explicit policies for workplace safety and
| environmental practices (e.g. what do you recycle, water
| usage, etc), you will usually need to put these in place. (We
| invested in manufacturing and these were extremely important
| to us). If you are located in multiple jurisdictions, you
| need to be ready to demonstrate that you are in compliance
| with local regulations and pass the equivalent of
| "integration tests", prove you are in compliance across
| multiple jurisdictions where their rules may differ or seem
| to conflict. The CEO knows what needs to get done and has the
| rolodex to get the people to help the company get these
| things done for a sale because he has done this several times
| before and understands the things that can go wrong.
| hipadev23 wrote:
| What does Gitlab do. And why are they publicly traded?
| mch82 wrote:
| https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/gitlab
|
| The team that runs this Hacker News comment site also invests
| in startups from time to time. GitLab did pretty well.
|
| :-)
| blastonico wrote:
| He's going to find out that being a Staples is harder than it
| looooks.
| tuananh wrote:
| - Previously in 2017, Bill Staples was brought in Marketo for the
| sole purpose of prepping the company before selling. 2018,
| Marketo was acquired by Adobe.
|
| - 2021, Bill becomes CEO of NewRelic. 2023, NewRelic was
| acquired.
|
| I'm seeing a pattern here.
| csunbird wrote:
| > Adobe announced that it's acquiring Marketo, a company that
| sells marketing software, from Vista Equity Partners for $4.75
| billion
|
| > New Relic to be Acquired by Francisco Partners and TPG for
| $6.5 Billion
|
| Sounds like he is good salesman, the numbers are quite good.
| righthand wrote:
| Glad I got out years ago after the price dropped and never
| recovered. Going public was not good for consumers or investors.
| tombert wrote:
| Yeah, I am still holding onto my couple shares. I am down about
| $98, and if this is just a bit to get acquired, I suspect
| they're going to force me to sell my shares at their current
| price.
| kevinsync wrote:
| I always liked Gitlab a lot better than Github, and I can't even
| pinpoint exactly why. Just something about the tactility of it,
| the ~ _-vibes-_ ~ ..
|
| I also bought some stock a while back because I liked the product
| -- praise Jah if they all make out like bandits if it sells, I
| just hope the new owner doesn't let the product shit the bed.
| revskill wrote:
| The cost of maintainance a Rails app is huge, due to dynamic
| typings.
| RainyDayTmrw wrote:
| I'm pessimistic about GitLab, given the state and trajectory of
| GitLab CI, which should be a core product for them. It's not in a
| good place, and it's not receiving the attention it needs, for
| being a core part of their platform. Being required to use GitLab
| CI causes me pain and frustration on a daily basis.
|
| If the other commenters are correct that the new CEO has a track
| record of pursuing private equity type acquisitions, then I fear
| GitLab CI is destined to become the next Travis CI.
| datenhorst wrote:
| Can I ask what specific pain points you have with Gitlab CI?
| I've been using it extensively the last couple of years and all
| in all it's been a pretty smooth experience!
| cyberpunk wrote:
| Wow having gone from gitlab to gh actions I miss gitlab ci
| massively.
|
| GitHub actions still aren't k8s native, you actually have to
| install docker on your "runners" like it's the year 2010.
| Pitiful.
| anotheranon867 wrote:
| Anon for reasons. I worked with Bill at Microsoft. Bill was fired
| from Microsoft along with most of his cronies who almost managed
| to completely tank Azure.
|
| He is the guy responsible for the absolute train wreck that was
| the Azure portal v2 (post silver light) and v3 (Ibiza). He lied
| to Scott Guthrie, buried efforts to benchmark or in any way
| measure CSAT or usability, and stabbed many many people in the
| back.
|
| Dude was also borderline incompetent.
|
| His partner and buddy in the whole fraud was Jonah Sterling who
| managed to continue to get promoted and is one of the top design
| leaders at Microsoft despite having zero UX/UI/Interaction skills
| or knowledge and costing Microsoft years of wasted effort and
| ruining many design careers by overpromoting his directs to boost
| his own career trajectory.
|
| After working with so many Microsoft execs who were either
| astoundingly incompetent or downright malicious people - it
| saddens me every time I see another one get named to a csuite of
| another company.
| corytheboyd wrote:
| It's a big club, and you ain't in it!
| MiggiV2 wrote:
| I'm eager to see how this unfolds, and I'm hoping for the best
| for Bill.
| fosefx wrote:
| Aside: What makes Gitlab "AI-powered"?
| Cupprum wrote:
| The press release is not that long, but it contains "AI-powered
| DevSecOps platform" 4 times :D so its just a buzzword.
| _joel wrote:
| They've got a copliot like code suggestions thingy.
| _joel wrote:
| I've found Gitlab to be quite flaky these past few months. I hope
| they concentrate on fixing things rather than getting ready to
| sell, but I won't hold my breath.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| I wish Gitlab would spend more time thinking through the best way
| to do things rather than just adding as many features as they
| can. From what I've seen (my usage of both products) they don't
| have a single feature that works as well as GitHub even though
| they probably have feature parity in theory.
| seeksky wrote:
| What about gitlab now
| acuozzo wrote:
| Unfortunately, nominative determinism did _not_ strike again in
| this case. Boo.
| Vosporos wrote:
| Ah well fuck, looks like some projects will have to move to
| Forgejo
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-06 23:01 UTC)