| "That knowledge about GitLab left a weird and confused taste in me. It gives me an impression, that is if a free tier user becomes inactive, they're no longer valuable for GitLab and can be treated as second-tier." GitLab has an explicit program for approved Open Source projects: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/community-relati... This is their philanthropic effort. They need to remain financially solvent to provide anything long term, so of course they need to be careful how much they're giving away and for how long. If you're not in the approved open source program, you should consider your usage of the "Free Tier" as part of their freemium business model whereby they hope to convert you at some point into a paying customer. > GitLab should seriously re-learn what's more important for their service: user engagement or the code hosted on it. They're a business that needs to pay the builds (including the long-term costs of storage). If they haven't approved your projects into their open source program, you should consider paying them to host the code. I have my own issues with GitLab, but I won't judge them for the need to pay the bills. |
When GitHub took off, they were not offering private repository at all. Instead, they added it in slowly when they can afford to do so. This is one of the reason why GitHub has now become the #1 platform for open source projects around the world.
GitLab is trying a different approach by focusing on offering repository hosting as service, but as time progresses and GitHub grows, this business model became less and less attractive. As a result of it, now days GitLab mainly attracts people who thinks GitHub isn't the right option for them, and that's not a big market. No matter how many cost they cut, if this remain unchanged, GitLab is already on it's dead bed (by that, I mean stop growing, not close for business).
GitHub is smart because at very beginning (before allowing private repositories), they knew that if they want to attract good programmers and projects, they must also accept and respect garbage, because that's what it takes to build their trust.
Deleting user data however, always destroy trust. If storing those repositories creates unbearable cost for GitLab, then maybe introduce a reasonable cap and then rejects new commits once the cap is exceeded (while asking user to buy more spaces). Making the entire repository just disappear is too much.
I'm glad that they did not end up choosing that route, but at the same time, not choosing that route should be the default, not something you just realized after it went to the media.