Arm Open Source makes a seamless migration to GitLab

https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2022/05/17/arm-open-source-makes-a-seamless-migration-to-gitlab/

163 94 4 years ago

about.gitlab.com

stavros2• 4 years ago

This is a semi-offtopic complaint, but I really hate the user changes they made. I planned to add Gitlab as a secondary option in our company's stack until we saw enough value/moved enough stuff to it to justify the 12x price over Github, but with the change we're only allowed 5 free users.

There's no way we'll pay $4000/mo for something people barely use, but we'd have paid for something everyone uses. I think they really shot themselves in the foot with that change.

hardwaresofton4• 4 years ago

Would you mind sharing how you could have changed the price if you could have? There are also options like GitlabHost[0] that might have worked

[0] https://gitlabhost.com/pricing

stavros2• 4 years ago

It wasn't so much about the price itself, as we'd pay it if necessary (though having to pay $20/mo for someone to just have access to, say, GitLab pages isn't great). The problem was mostly the removal of free users.

I had added most of the company to a GitLab org I created, and we were using more and more things there, we even have a private CI runner. It was a good way to gradually migrate the organization to GitLab. Now I have to move everything back because there's no way we'll pay thousands of dollars per month for it for the few things we use, and everyone but 5 people will lose access to it in a month.

Basically, the "only 5 free users" thing removes the trojan horse of gradually moving to GitLab until we realize it's worth paying for.

SOLAR_FIELDS• 4 years ago

Wow, gitlabhost seems also priced quite high if it's just the CE version and not EE. I was thinking some 2-4x multiplier vs just hosting it yourself - not 8x the price.

sugaroverflow• 4 years ago

GitLab team member here :)

There were recent changes to user limits on the Free tier of GitLab SaaS. We are limiting the number of users per namespace on the Free tier to 5 users per namespace. Details are in this blog post: https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2022/03/24/efficient-free-tier.

Beltiras• 4 years ago

I'm a huge advocate for GitLab. I used their on-premise offering at my last position (sadly have to work with GitHub now). I became quite intimate with how the CI/CD processes work on GitLab and heartily recommend it over GitHub or Atlassian offerings. I don't have experience with their cloud offering.

candiddevmike• 4 years ago

As a GitHub user, I don't think I see the value in Gitlab relative to what they charge. I think by chasing "DevOps" they no longer deliver a tight product offering like GitHub and instead it's a bunch of loosely integrated, opinionated technologies/processes.

Seems like by adopting Gitlab, you're adopting their view of how stuff should work. YMMV.

deepstack2• 4 years ago

main reason I use Gitlab instead of GitHub, MS. Won't touch a closed source MS project with 10 foot pole. Not after the all the backdoor they being putting in NT kernel, etc.

deepstack2• 4 years ago

otherwise, there are gittee etc that way more lightweight where you can self-host.

ChuckNorris892• 4 years ago

after the all the backdoor they being putting in NT kernel

Do you have a source for this bold claim?

HN should be for facts, not Reddit FUD.

nickstinemates2• 4 years ago

https://sr.ht

really good.

thejosh• 4 years ago

Thinking that gitlab is any more secure than Microsoft when the NSA comes knocking isn't comforting. There is no way to know. But really, is your code and access that much of a secret to the government, and if it is, do you really trust "cloud" hosting?

IMHO, Microsoft is absolute trash and their reputation isn't great, but since buying Github there have been very good improvements still being made to Github (CI.. though slowly, UI, etc). Better than being bought by Salesforce......

lloeki• 4 years ago

most of the new core infrastructure that Arm is deploying is on proprietary hardware

GitHub offers self-hosted CI runners, but it's infamously limited. Last I checked there's still no official GH runner release for arm64-darwin (for which community, including yours truly, provided reliable workarounds through Rosetta that still lands you in an arm64-darwin bash, and now IIUC actual native builds[1]), there's no way to select anything else than x64 in the UI for Windows and macOS, which sets some tags on the runners that you can't remove, and there's no way to say "Other" with a custom value. Comparatively, gitlab-runner is a crazy adaptable piece of code, that allows for quite unique setups[0], combined with the loose way one can automatically assign jobs to runners using tags GL pipelines trounce GHA workflows†.

[0] https://docs.gitlab.com/runner/executors/

[1] https://github.com/actions/runner/issues/805

† GHA covers 80% of cases (from basic to a bit more involved) somewhat nicely, but when it starts to fall short it's terrible.

A large bonus for Arm was that GitLab is open source and the company wanted to use its own tools to support its open source ecosystem.
minimize vendor lock-in
Because Arm is an IP company, security is paramount

When GNU-ish philosophy meets business requirements. GitHub can be self-hosted (at a price!) but GitLab is FOSS, so it can be audited, and if necessary, forked. From code to data, it can be owned, end to end.

grepfru_it• 4 years ago

GitHub internally doesn't support ARM so this comes as no surprise

bogwog• 4 years ago

Gitlab is amazing once you get into the flow of using it, especially if you self host.

Github seems to be primarily focused on becoming a social network. That might be why it’s so popular for open source and individuals, but when I’m actually working, the extensive feature set of Gitlab is much more useful.

Also Gitlab CI is a Maybach, Github CI is a PT Cruiser.

goodoldneon3• 4 years ago

Agreed! I like working on open source stuff on GitHub but GitLab CI is so nice

duxup• 4 years ago

Github seems to be primarily focused on becoming a social network.

I think I understand why people say this. However, I hardly ever see any of that so it just doesn’t matter to me / isn’t a problem for me.

ossusermivami• 4 years ago

working with both APIs I feel the GitHUB is way ahead of other Git Forge APIs, see for example Github APPS, integration with webhook and oauth app is nowhere the same experience

SmileyKeith• 4 years ago

Github seems to be primarily focused on becoming a social network

I never hit the GitHub.com homepage so I never see any of this work. I always start directly on a repo, notifications, or search.

goodoldneon3• 4 years ago

GitLab's "premium" tier is the same price as GitHub's "enterprise" tier, and GitLab Premium looks to be enough for most companies

bastardoperator3• 4 years ago

Maybe on paper, but the reality is MSFT has far more sku's. When you start bundling services/products with MSFT you're going to see big savings in other places, one of those places is likely GitHub. What if I told you I would throw in a user license for GitHub for each Visual Studio renewal based on 1K users? Now your company is saving 1.1M dollars by moving away from GitLab. I don't think the price is the same at all...

INTPenis• 4 years ago

The strength of gitlab has always been their runner setup. Arm likely want to use this to run runners on any hardware platform, unrestricted.

I'm still a strong gitlab supporter but tbh their development backlog is overflowing for the last 4 years at least. They have a TON of work to do and they seem to be focusing dev resources on what major clients want, instead of making the whole platform more robust. It's sad for us simple open source free tier users.

wildmanx• 4 years ago

Somebody needs to pay their bills. It's not going to be money coming in from the open source free tier users.

boleary-gl• 4 years ago

Hi, GitLab team member here.

There is work to do, and product and engineering are putting more focus on fixing longstanding issues, and increase reliability. Specifically for GitLab Runner, 15.0 and later bring many fixes, next to supporting podman.

https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/issues/?sort=updated_...

hericium• 4 years ago

I think by chasing "DevOps" they no longer deliver a tight product offering like GitHub

I'm looking at this move/marketing of theirs as a show of being in opposition to Bitbucket which (along with other Atlassian's products) is made for managers.

pid-1• 4 years ago

I find their CI/CD much less opinionated than GitHub's.

fourthark• 4 years ago

What does this mean?

Arm was using GitHub for source code hosting. But most of the new core infrastructure that Arm is deploying is on proprietary hardware, and "GitHub is a black box and so we would have to work with them or let them do the work, and it wouldn't necessarily be correct," Wafaa says. "Then we'd have to do reviews. We wouldn't necessarily be able to do the patch reviews because it's all private and proprietary code… that was a big factor for us choosing GitLab."

Seems garbled, what does the proprietary nature of GitHub have to do with code review process?

Are they just saying they can’t host a lot of the code publicly?

martinald• 4 years ago

I think they are referring to on premesis GitHub Enterprise Server, which won't work for them because they are using new CPU archs like arm64 which it doesn't run on?

That's my guess but not very clear at all...

3boll• 4 years ago

IMHO they are talking about reviewing 3rd party software, not their own developments.

But is not a great reason they probably have more products where the source is not available to them...

lucideer2• 4 years ago

I would guess they're likely referring to the proprietary / black-box nature of (one of or a combination of) the Github API for automation tasks, the Github Apps marketplace & associated APIs, and the Github actions infra & archs.

als0• 4 years ago

Yeah I’m sure this is garbled by a VP. Sounds like they want more control over the CI process and keep more of that process private.

masklinn• 4 years ago

I’d think it’s issues like CI runners and the like?

I don’t think you can handroll github dedicated runners (e.g. I read recently that there’s still no support for M1 dedicated runners).

If ARM wants to run CI directly on the ISAs they’re developing, or with complicated custom toolchains such that they can run tests on ISA under development from a host machine, they probably need pretty extensive customisations on the runner site, which would require contracting github to do that for them, or having to work directly on github code, for ARM-exclusive needs.

Either way a lot of collaboration work for something which isn’t really collaborative, or of any concern or value to github as a company. And with possible risks of information leak one way or another.

viccuad• 4 years ago

part of the supply chain is your source forge and builders. On GitHub, you can point the builders to your own infra.. and then maybe check cryptographically that all source code that lands on the builder is correctly signed and trusted.

But it's nearly impossible to do that for the forge itself (GitHub).

I recommend https://slsa.dev (vendor-neutral effort from the Linux Foundation) for a better picture of a secure supply chain.

fartcannon4• 4 years ago

He's saying Microsoft can spy on your stuff and that they dont want that.

renewiltord• 4 years ago

Pretty easy to understand if you have the context. They're probably using Github Enterprise (GHE). GHE may not run on their proprietary hardware. When things fail, they can't fix it because they don't have access to the source. When there is an update, they need to review the patches to make sure that stuff will work on their hardware.

Simply put, the open source is a beneficial thing for Arm here.

blippage• 4 years ago

I'm in the process of migrating my projects to GitLab myself, away from GitHub. It was a good excuse to consolidate projects and delete some stuff that is unlikely to be of use to me.

GitHub does seem a bit simpler to use in my mind. My needs are simple, though.

rvz• 4 years ago

Smart choice. Unlike centralising everything to GitHub. [0]

Self-hosting is indeed the way to go; especially for companies like ARM.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22867803

alaricus2• 4 years ago

Ever since Microsoft bought GitHub, I have been telling people to switch to something else (codeberg, gitlab... there are lots of alternatives).

I'm glad ARM thinks the same.

hardware2win• 4 years ago

Why?

alaricus2• 4 years ago

I don't like relying on Microsft. Their track record is bad.

bastardoperator3• 4 years ago

Ever since Microsoft bought Minecraft, I have been telling people to switch to something else (roblox, fortnight... there are lots of alternatives).

I'm glad a company that was willing to sell off it's IP to one of the most closed source companies on the planet fell through...

kaladin-jasnah• 4 years ago

most closed source companies

Slightly less now. But still not great.

pyler• 4 years ago

But do they support gitlab? Pay them?

Or are they just (ab)use open source projects to spend less money? (They had to pay $$$ to github).

johannes1234321• 4 years ago

They at least support gotlan in being a testimonial. And usually that implies some commercial agreement.

And typically such organisations, like arm, want to have a contract, and be it only to make lawyers happy. (clearer liability etc )

prytania• 4 years ago

AWS has a huge investment in Graviton processors (arm). AWS lacks a full-featured git product. GitHub == Microsoft. Curious if there’s anything happening in the background which further motivated this.

prepend7• 4 years ago

AWS does have a product called CodeCompmit or something. But it’s not very good and even aws people usually use GitHub or GitLab or even BitBucket.

jnsaff22• 4 years ago

I really wanted to like GitLab but after having used in a few BigCo's I just can't get round to it.

It's really slow and unstable. It's also constantly trying to push different messages into my face that I don't care about nor can I switch off those messages (Autodevops for example). Some of the ui tooltips constantly block the links I want to click on, search it REALLY slow and almost useless. This is the paid gitlab.com SaaS.

Also after reading one of their postmortems about an incident where someone deleted a production DB, it just did not inspire confidence.

Also they have taken a ton of VC money, not sure how long the "not Microsoft" argument is going to stand.

Current client is on GitHub and the experience is definitely much better. Not happy about their MS ties and tech-bro misogyny problems. Hopeful for sourcehut tho.

simplehuman• 4 years ago

Yeah, I don't understand those autodevops tooltips either.

danudey• 4 years ago

I've yet to see an explanation of "autodevops", or what it does or how it works, that actually makes the feature make sense to me.

Beltalowda• 4 years ago

I also find GitLab's UI pretty chaotic, and a lot of space is wasted on "UI chrome".

mhh__• 4 years ago

So, yes. Gitlab is a bit crap, but equally it also just feels better than GitHub for self-hosted software and more importantly actually running a company.

The company I work for is in finance, but we manage a lot of things on gitlab to take advantage of git, gitlab can just about facilitate this, whereas GitHub I just don't think would be able to.

Also what's this about tech-bro misogyny? As a regular code reviewer on GitHub I actively don't really want to know anything about the contributors, so not sure what this refers to. Internal culture?

marcosdumay• 4 years ago

You know what works great for self-hosting? Gitea and Gogs. Personally I gave-up on even trying Gitlab after reading the docs, the hardware needs alone are in a different world from Gogs.

Also what's this about tech-bro misogyny?

GitHub has kept some widely disliked (for good reasons) people on its board, and censored user content on several different directions by now. Including completely deleting some projects. It's the kind of thing that doesn't really matter to you, until it does, and if it eventually does, it really sucks.

But yeah, avoiding that kind of problem is one of the reasons to self-host.

dijit• 4 years ago

I agree with everything you've said, and I'm a pretty staunch advocate for gitlab.

I hope that the powers that be are listening.

I still think they're the best of the AIO SCM tools, but I think people are starting to consider disrupting them because of bloat (UI, performance).

asddubs• 4 years ago

gitea seems pretty promising. of course there isn't one canonical instance that is "official", which puts it in a bit of a different category (but maybe that's also a good thing for its continuing openness)

dbrgn• 4 years ago

Self-hosted on-premise GitLab is much nicer to use than the SaaS gitlab.com instance.

A few years ago (when I used gitlab.com regularly), the hosted version was quite slow and felt like a buggy beta-testing environment. Not sure if it's better nowadays. On the other hand, I'm running two on-prem instances of GitLab for a few years now, and they've been working flawlessly and are fast. (One of them is now upgraded to the Premium plan.)

tlb• 4 years ago

Gitlab went public last year, so VCs no longer have much power over it.

lucideer2• 4 years ago

Sourcehut & Gitea are cool, but I don't see them as being in the same market as Github & Gitlab (& Bitbucket). There's pros and cons to both "ends" of the market (minimal, efficient, light -vs- big supported corporate featureful), and there's probably room for both.

The problem is Gitlab has really gone off the deep end of "heavy", and - combined with inconsistent / confusing UX throughout - it makes it a poor fit for even the most well-resourced bigcorp install.

It's a pity Phabricator didn't take off. It seemed like a great contender in that space.

nimbius• 4 years ago

github has had 30 outage incidents this year so far, few of which even acknowledge a root cause or offer any sort of lessons learned or remediation announcements.

maybe this will be the shot across the bow Microsoft needs to hopefully improve the github experience, but i doubt it. they have a track-record of splurging cash for things they really want that could absolutely drive revenue, but without much qualified ability to shepherd the product lifecycle past the initial commitment of IP and marketing.

midislack• 4 years ago

Is MS going to and or trying to move this to a Windows backend like they did with the one phone they bought? Can't recall the name.

wdb• 4 years ago

I wished they would work on their search. On Github you can easily explore and find new projects based on keywords. But on Gitlab this doesn't really work for me, the search is slow, or doesn't really search public Gitlab repositories

Dave3of5• 4 years ago

[Insert conspiracy theory about Microsoft and GitHub and Arm chips.]

Bonus: something about 5G networks.

why-el• 4 years ago

I made the same half-serious joke about Gitlab since it came out: they do not understand visual contrast, and a github user coming to gitlab is instantly both overwhelmed by how much info is in their face and how blended everything is in the issue tracker (everything is white-backgrounded, no way to discern important info). Fix this and you will get people over.

roywashere• 4 years ago

Arm has about 200 external contributors running open source projects, "and GitLab made it appealing cost-wise," Wafaa says. "That was just the icing on the cake." Usually the number of contributors is higher but Arm had to scale it back as it migrated projects to GitLab, he adds

What does this mean? ARM needed to scale back their number of contributors because it was migrating to GitLab? I'm not sure how that can be great marketing?

apple4ever4• 4 years ago

This link no longer works. They pulled it down?

Arm Open Source makes a seamless migration to GitLab

Related Stories