[analogsalad]

As a customer of Gitlab, I'm satisfied with their uptime and I have no reason to believe that they can't fix these issues in good time.

Yes, I can also fix it if the server was my mine but more than likely I'll be busy doing my actual job (which does not involve fiddling with self-hosted gitlab instances) so I'll take my chances with the Gitlab engineering team. They do fix things and me being busy, asleep, sick, or travelling have no impact on their response. I intend to keep it this way.

[manquer]

Nothing wrong with that outlook, plenty of people do take the train after all extending the analogy further.

However ridiculing people who want to their control infrastructure better because they don't have the expertise or time as the guys running the railway gets old.

[analogsalad]

I had no intention of ridiculing anybody, there are things that I self-host but I like to pick and choose my battles instead of a blanket "I must have control over everything" approach. My response was specifically to this comment:

> And this is why you self-host on your own instance.

This was the commentary on the outage, and it's just outright wrong. Your self-hosted instances will also experience outages. That's the point I inteded to raise.

[manquer]

I meant the OP , who was making fun of self hosting, didn't mean to imply you did.

I am not denying that there different people have different needs, not everyone wants or has the time to drive either . Just that self hosting is also valid even with uptime or other concerns.

Having said that achieving better uptime is quite possible self hosting not because we are better but because we have simpler challenges than gitlab.com, poorer uptime is also quite likely if we don't know what we are doing.

Simply put, managed services doesn't mean better uptime doesn't automatically .