knownothing

Exactly.

If there's anything I want Gitlab to copy from GitHub, it's the opinionated decision making of what to show and when to show it.

Thing is, that will never happen. The project has already sprawled out of control and if they tried to remove things or drastically change the product users would just start forking the project. Or someone would copy GitLab and make a totally open source clone (that'd be ironic).

On a side note, does the issue tracker for GitLab CE worry anyone else? https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues Nearly 11k issues some from 3 years ago.

It's right in their blog post, if you read it https://about.gitlab.com/2018/06/03/movingtogitlab/

GitHub is popular because it allows developers to connect the tools they want to use to their repository. Some people find having everything in one package convenient, but the truth is there are better tools for most everything GitLab does. I don't see how jamming everything into one application makes it appealing.

I prefer GitHub's approach of allowing applications to deliver more information back into GitHub https://blog.github.com/2018-05-07-introducing-checks-api/ As the tooling we use becomes more complicated that will be the winning strategy.

They are also paying people to Tweet. That's the only way for people to get a discount.

None of the things you listed are focused on usability, which is what OP complained about. Liking some isolated features of a product doesn't mean it's easy to use/understand or well-designed.

Thing is it’s not even an exodus. It’s just a few thousand repos. And they aren’t even prepared to handle that. If there actually was a mass migration GitLab would completely fall over. I’m sure that would give folks a lot of confidence in the platform though.

Yeah. This reeks of desperate and exaggerated marketing to me. Which is pretty much par for the course when it comes to anything GitLab says.

As others have said, support for two platforms was added. And GitHub was already supported. Guess that doesn’t make a great headline though.

This is pretty much par for course when it comes to GitLab marketing. Made up headlines that can't be supported with facts.

I'd like to point out that GitLab is not independent. They are owned by investors, including Google Ventures. So anyone who thinks they're giving GitHub/MS the finger by migrating their repos, please be ready to move everything again when GitLab disappoints you.

Um, have you actually tried doing anything about this? https://help.github.com/articles/searching-in-forks/

If the outcome is that they're adding more features to make the product better who cares? That's competition functioning as intended.

Every user account and organization on GitHub can have unlimited collaborators on any number of public repositories.

From: https://help.github.com/articles/github-s-billing-plans/

So if your friend's repositories are all public no payment is required.

https://help.github.com/articles/backing-up-a-repository/

I'd imagine all OAuth tokens associated with an account are rolled when it's transferred.

Philosophy is important. The fact that you're even asking that question indicates a deep ignorance of the history of ideas and thought. It's also slightly absurd because empiricism is itself a philosophy.

Empiricism, as a method, became important because Bacon wanted to replace Aristotle's logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_method. That took about 2000 years to happen, just to give you a sense of scale. And it's what helped spur the scientific revolution so it's also why we've got our little laptops and Facebook today.

The scientific revolution and scientific method are a branch off of a long, long conversation about the world, the nature of it, and how we should understand it.

Now, that's not to say there's not a lot of silly, useless garbage being put out under the guise of "philosophy". That's definitely the case. The challenge is identifying productive or useful parts and using them in a coherent manner.

Interesting. If I was a sailor hundreds of years ago and witnessed something like that I might think it was a merman.

Good luck finding a counterparty.

Thanks, I'll take a look.

You're definitely not alone. It makes sense on an intuitive level. Even when you "close" your eyes, you can't stop yourself from seeing. You're simply staring at the inside of your eyelids.

EDIT: I had not heard of the Ganzfield effect before, although I was familiar with the phenomenon itself. It does seem like this a manifestation of what they're referring to. As a side note, in sensory deprivation situations you also become keenly aware of the sound of your heart beating and the sound of your blood circulating in your veins. It's very odd.

It's a concerning trend. Another strange example: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-la-weekly-20171129-sto...

No problem. Atlassian actually acquired Bitbucket in 2010 and then released Stash (later rebranded as Bitbucket Server) in 2012.

It'd be nice if you could link to the studies so we can check them out. I've seen a decent amount of criticism on this topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit-association_test#Crit...

bitbucket.org is just Atlassian's copy of BitBucket, which you can buy from them and hose yourself.

This is incorrect. Bitbucket Cloud and Server are two completely separate codebases. On the other hand, GitHub Enterprise is basically a snapshot of the production GitHub application.

Stop spamming this prediction in comments.

Reasonable interpretation. Nice research. I wish the author had expressed what they meant more clearly. That phrase is poorly deployed.

I'd guess that "wore" should be printed as "were". And further that it's intended to be a figurative use of the word meant to convey that he disliked people who were stiff or formal, like a crinoline. Disliking women has nothing to do with it.

If you like <sarcasm>editors with long startup times </sarcasm> you can check out Teletype from the Atom team: https://teletype.atom.io/

So will the wealthy be disproportionately affected by issues with concentration? That seems to be the implication of your statement. However, I'm also unconvinced that the ability to concentrate (above an average level, at least) has historically been an important component of accumulating wealth.

Does freedom == privacy?

The ability to think, speak, write, and associate freely requires privacy. It's not a question of the two being equivalent.

Is that different than how stocks work?