reuters.com
www.reuters.com

Expect more enshittification coming your way.

  • just another dev@lemmy.my-box.devEnglish
    961·
    3 months ago

    Typical that the title does mention Google (who currently has a minority stake) but not Datadog, who would become the new owner.

    But yeah, I don’t foresee a new owner making things better for gitlab.

    • jonne@infosec.pubEnglish
      251·
      3 months ago

      I don’t know, seems like being owned by Google would be worse. They kill stuff left and right.

      • just another dev@lemmy.my-box.devEnglish
        18·
        3 months ago

        But they have been partially owned by Google for the past time, and the product has been great.

        Google’s involvement is only going to lessen, so the only reason to put so much emphasis on that in the headline would be to get those rage clicks.

        • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.eeEnglish
          5·
          3 months ago

          Partially owned gives room for the product to stay alive. It being fully owned by Google makes it subject to being killed.

          • just another dev@lemmy.my-box.devEnglish
            4·
            3 months ago

            I guess responses like yours is the reason the headline didn’t mention the actual party gitlab is in talks with. People just love to have their villain.

            Ignore the headline. Read the article. Gitlab is not about to sell to Google. They are about to sell to Datadog.

            • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.eeEnglish
              2·
              3 months ago

              Selling to Datadog isn’t a guarantee. The most important detail is that they’re exploring a sale, and other companies are probably going to be interested.

    • barsquid@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      3 months ago

      Oh, neat, DataDog. So if you add a new label to a repo your monthly bill would rocket to the moon.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        2·
        3 months ago

        I feel this so much. We evaluated them at work, and while they did pretty much exactly what we wanted, we weren’t willing to pay their fees.

  • jherazob@fedia.io
    501·
    3 months ago

    This worries me, i can see the new owners killing the Community edition and/or enshittifying the software to uselessness. Do we have a FOSS alternative that does the whole CI/CD pipeline too?

    • JackbyDev@programming.devEnglish
      16·
      3 months ago

      Codeberg, but you have to manually apply for the CI/CD part. Also, Codeberg only allows you to host FOSS projects.

    • Moin@programming.devEnglish
      91·
      3 months ago

      SourceHut is worth checking out. It leans towards minimal aesthetics, but is actually very functional. Granted, the workflow is quite different than other VCS providers, but you may grow into it, like I have :)

      • mox@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        21·
        3 months ago

        SourceHut burns my eyes. Has Drew (or someone to whom he has delegated such things) announced a dark mode yet?

        • communism@lemmy.mlEnglish
          2·
          3 months ago

          Dark Reader browser extension or just a userstyle. For me, Dark Reader works very well for sourcehut.

          • mox@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            1·
            3 months ago

            Thanks, but I know browser extensions exist. I was just curious whether it’s going to be supported natively.

        • Moin@programming.devEnglish
          1·
          3 months ago

          BTW, SourceHut now automatically switches to light/dark mode based on your OS settings.

          Unless I made a mistake checking it the last time, it’s like Drew saw your comment and took it personally xD

          • mox@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
            2·
            3 months ago

            Haha… Maybe he keeps tabs on the fediverse?

            It doesn’t work with Resist Fingerprinting mode (which hides OS settings), and doesn’t have a manual toggle that I can see, but does now have a @media(prefers-color-scheme:dark) clause in its CSS. That’s a step in the right direction. :)

            Thanks for the tip!

  • merc@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    316·
    3 months ago

    I don’t think tech people understand how bad it is that Microsoft owns GitHub.

    GitLab is one of the few places people could go if GitHub enshittifies too much. Google’s stake in it (or full ownership of it) would probably be a good thing, because it would be seen as an important strategic hedge against Microsoft. If it’s bought by a smaller player, I can see GitHub squeezing it into irrelevance.

    • odelik@lemmy.todayEnglish
      101·
      3 months ago

      I just wish GitHub wasn’t part of MS anymore.

      I also don’t want Gitlab owned by another megacorp.

      Something funded by the government but ran by a public org would be ideal.

      • merc@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        121·
        3 months ago

        I just wish GitHub wasn’t part of MS anymore.

        Too bad. Microsoft is using it as part of their extremely long term plan to control the software that developers use to do their jobs. VSCode is another front in that battle. Things are going slowly, but they’re winning.

        • boonhet@lemm.eeEnglish
          5·
          3 months ago

          VSCode is another front in that battle. Things are going slowly, but they’re winning.

          They replaced Atom with VSCode, but some of the Atom devs are now working on Zed, which finally has Linux support. Or for a paid alternative, we have the Jetbrains suite, which can be excellent if that’s your thing.

          For Github, we still have Gitlab as an alternative, but once that goes, we have Gitea or Forgejo to move to.

          The thing is that many developers are a vengeful bunch who hate big corps with their enshittification fetishes and love open source solutions. Microsoft has to tread really carefully here.

          • merc@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            6·
            3 months ago

            but some of the Atom devs are now working on Zed

            Ok… but just because someone’s working on an alternative doesn’t mean that alternative will be able to unseat VSCode. Microsoft is spending tens of millions per year to gently lock people into VSCode.

            The thing is that many developers are a vengeful bunch who hate big corps with their enshittification fetishes and love open source solutions. Microsoft has to tread really carefully here.

            And they have been treading carefully for decades, and it’s working. The people who supposedly hate big corps mostly use GitHub and VSCode. They’re heating the water very, very slowly, and the frogs are staying in the pot.

      • communism@lemmy.mlEnglish
        5·
        3 months ago

        Something funded by the government but ran by a public org would be ideal.

        “the government” which government?

        I don’t want software beholden to any state interests. I see donationware as the way to go; or if donations can’t sustain server costs, donations for sustaining development, and then a public flagship instance which people can pay to use, or self-host for their own server costs.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

        Why the government? There are plenty of free git hosting services out there, take your pick. If gitlab goes away, move to gitea, forgejo, gitosis, etc.

  • MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zipEnglish
    182·
    3 months ago

    Let’s explore the scenarios

    Scenario 1: GitLab is acquired by Google

    Scenario 2: GitLab is acquired by Apple

    Scenario 3: GitLab is acquired by a State government

    Scenario 4: Gitlab is acquired by Amazon

    Scenario 5: Gitlab is acquired by the Linux Foundation

    Scenario 6: Gitlab is acquired by the Federal Government

    Scenario 7: Gitlab is acquired by IBM