Agreed. I cannot believe that GCP and AWS are so asleep at the wheel either. If I were them I would literally be throwing money at some of the GitHub folks to have them fix AWS or GCP.
And it was should have been rather obvious when GitHub released the beta of Actions a few years ago. Actions remains the most important thing GitHub has done, ever, in my opinion. It might take a few more years for people to fully realize what this could be. Hope GitHub doesn't screw it up!
There are dozens of CI/CD offerings and many are better designed than Github actions, including Gitlab's CI runners.
I don't see what paying Github would do for AWS or GCP. They both have their own code repos, build pipelines, container registries, and more. Even Azure has its own DevOps product.
I use Gitlab's CI runners and I agree. However, I am pretty excited about the direction that Github is going with their actions. Having a directory of user created actions and integrations seems like gold to me and I hope Gitlab starts leaning that way soon.
I agree, but GitHub must fix the security nightmare that is waiting to happen with GitHub actions marketplace. Seems like this would be such an easy fix, too.
It's all about the ease of use. Manually setting up CI/CD is _hard_ and requires a team to maintain and support it. Whether through a home-rolled Jenkins deployment or Buildkite.
It was super obvious the value prop when it was HCL based. YAML based it kind of looks more like 'another CI'. It's still insanely powerful, just not as developer friendly anymore.
Continuous integration (CI) and continuous deployment (CD) services. Essentially when you merge a changeset you can configure a specific branch to automatically test, package, deploy, and integration test that branch with no additional human intervention.
:/ This feels like a 100% reaction to the GitHub acquisition by VCs not understanding the market. I'll bet the inbound to them was nuts the weeks following the new. Good on Sid for fleecing the VCs though how GitLab ever supports that valuation is beyond me.
> Good on Sid for fleecing the VCs though how GitLab ever supports that valuation is beyond me.
Good on the VCs who have deep connections to Google, Amazon, SalesForce, SAP, Oracle, Apple, etc. to make some serious money by selling GitLab to them at some point.
I am very critical of VCs, but when it comes to a market for selling software development tools, you have a limitless balance sheet out there (easily in the $200B market range).
Investors who clearly "not understanding the [software development] market" include:
> Good on the VCs who have deep connections to Google, Amazon, SalesForce, SAP, Oracle, Apple, etc. to make some serious money by selling GitLab to them at some point.
All of these companies have their own internal version control, and its highly doubtful that any of them would switch over to a third-party service.
There's a few people confusing the purchase of software and the purchase of a software company. Sorry for not being more clear.
I'm specifically talking about the fact that all of those companies have massive amounts of cash that they could buy the company and it would create an ROI from the profit it generates.
This. I've never used any of their products but I've always found their marketing to be spot on. They perfectly positioned themselves as a 3rd option to GitHub and BitBucket. With the GitHub acquisition and Atlassian's stock on fire right now, they were in the perfect position to go for an insane valuation.
There'll be more about what made the VCs invest in the live stream tomorrow (10 AM PT / 1pm ET / 5pm UTC). You can register at https://about.gitlab.com/webcast/whats-next-for-gitlab/ but the tl;dr is that the VCs have been following GitLab's progress and metrics for a while now and it was not a kneejerk reaction (even though I get that the timing might make it feel like that).
Is there anyway to register for the live stream without giving up my work email? I'd like to listen but don't feel like I should be giving away my company contact info.
Might not be satisfying for folks, but it seems people who understand the issues thing this is a non-thing.
FWIW, I understand the issues, am active in open source, and even ran a very large OSS project for four years which had huge contributor agreement, attribution and mixed licensing challenges (though IANAL), and I consider it a non-thing.
1242 day old account, but you know, whatever ;) Granted, I don't comment much. Guess I'm breaking that habit today.
That's my end /s ;)
But for real, yeah, always talk to a lawyer if you have questions. However, this is NOT unique to this situation. Open source licensing is essentially fucked. Too many people with opinions on what it means and almost no (if any?) case law on the topic.
I love OSS, I love open source. I like that Richard Stallman exists in the world. However, the flip is that most ardent and staunch people who take excessively hardline stances on licenses are trading in exceedingly nuanced hair-splitting and increasing bike shed (define "is") discussions at best or their own version of OSS licensing FUD at worst.
But, if your company depends on OSS and you don't know, talk to a lawyer of course.
This is old at this point so I have no idea if anyone will see this.
I'm in the 5% according to this[1] based on my salary (not properties or anything like that, just salary).
Based on the tone of the thread so far to this point, people aren't going to want to hear this, but I also lack access to capital and ability to network with the wealthiest in my area. I'm literally an employee. I very high paid employee, yes, but an employee.
I too am only working a job and similar to you, it is only going to get me so far.
I started working at McDonald's at 16 in high school. I worked my way through school (RA, Dorm tech, other odd jobs), worked my way into an internship (skipped junior year to do internship), finished school and was lucky to get a job (2000). That job started at $40k, which was amazing for a kid out of school, I guess. From there it was extremely hard work, lucky breaks, taking some chances before wife and kids came along, getting a master's degree, having a few setbacks (financially) and starting over.
I'm making the money now, but I know this job won't last forever. I'm highly paid in this moment in time (and for the time I have this job), but when it ends, I can't expect another to just come along. So I'm saving. And preparing. And making sure this time doesn't go to waste.
The truly wealthy don't think like this; they don't have to. There is not "what if" future. The OP and I seem like we are in the same boat and, frankly, I get what he/she is saying. Salaried employees that happen to find themselves in the top X% are likely not living large or without worry like the truly wealthy[2].
[2] - We are not "living large", we are comfortable. As an example. Wife drives a 2006 prius. I drive a 2007 minivan. Bought both used. We rent our home b/c rent-mortgage ratios in our area don't make sense to buy. Our kids go to public school. We worry about saving for the kids future like most anyone. We worry about retirement (neither of us have a pension) and we worry about health. A single high-cost health event could wipe us out. It almost did years back when wife got very sick and was in hosp/ICU for a week. Wiped out saving and had to sell car we had at the time and use CC to fully pay.
And, yes, I Know that we were able to recover in part b/c of the higher than normal salary. The point is, we aren't living like the silicon valley millionaires/billionaires people would expect us to be. We also worry about money.
And it was should have been rather obvious when GitHub released the beta of Actions a few years ago. Actions remains the most important thing GitHub has done, ever, in my opinion. It might take a few more years for people to fully realize what this could be. Hope GitHub doesn't screw it up!