I used Gitlab a few years ago, but then it had severe client-side performance problems on large pull requests. Github isn't ideal with them too, but it manages to be decent.
this is like comparing chrome and other browsers, even chromium based.
chrome and github will employ all tricks in the book, even if they screw you. for example, how many hours of despair I've wasted when manually dissecting a git history on employer github by opening merge diffs, hitting ctrl F, seeing no results and moving to the next... only to find on the 100th diff that deep down the diff lost they hid the most important file because it was more convenient for them (so one team lead could hit some page load metric and get a promotion)
I mean GitHub in general has been pretty reliable minus the two outages they had last year and is usually pretty performant or I wouldn’t use their keyboard shortcuts.
There are some complaints here from a former dev about gitlab that might provide insight into its culture and lack of regard for performance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39303323
Ps: I do not use gitlab enough to notice performance issues but thought you might appreciate the article
> I mean GitHub in general has been pretty reliable minus the two outages they had last year
Huh? GitHub has had major outages practically every other week for a few years now. There are pages of HN threads[1].
There's a reason why githubstatus.com doesn't show historical metrics and uptime percentages: it would make them look incompetent. Many outages aren't even officially reported there.
I do agree that when it's up, performance is typically better than Gitlab's. But describing GH as reliable is delusional.
> Was it specific services within GitHub that failed a lot?
Well, everything from its frontends, to the CI service, to the Git service itself. People weren't able to push, pull, deploy or review code for hours at a time. Just major disruptions all around, which happened regularly.
I do think this has improved slightly over the past few months, but you were lucky if you weren't affected much.
You can't throw around specific metrics ("two outages they had last year") then claim you were just sharing a personal anecdote when someone calls you out and brings receipts. Just take the L.
I absolutely can because this is a discussion. Being called delusional for sharing my experience on a platform I use _at least_ 40 hours a week was a bit much but in case you missed it, I relented. They brought receipts and I came down from my position because there was none. I wasn't arguing with anyone or saying anyone was wrong about anything.
Do you expect all of your conversations to be backed by facts and citation? Is that why the only comments you make are aggressive and confrontational? Because it's easier than the bar you're setting for everyone else? Yea, I looked back at your history, not a single url.
And now I'm taking a position.
> No worries you’re fine. I guess downtime was much more widespread than I could even imagine.