Point taken, but I assume that those guys that want to protect their code from the outside might want to go for a complete in-house solution as well, instead of storing it in the cloud (I know that this is the big thing now and all, but let's assume that I'm not the only one that likes to have local storage, local backup and local basic/essential services).

Those can grab gitorious and set it up locally. Takes (depending on experience with linux, rails etc) half a day for your first installation and you have the same thing running in your office/vpn. With all your closed source precious projects.

That's a heavy assumption. If you're wrong, the result is that Gitorious doesn't fit for potentially a large number of developers.

In my experience, sampling developers with whom I speak on a regular basis (and myself), private repos on GitHub are very popular. This is especially the case for web developers, as open sourcing web apps is less common. It's nice to have all of my open source stuff in the same place as my closed source stuff, such that I (and anyone I deem worthy) can interact with both in the same way.

Agreed. The assumption _is_ heavy and I even have the same sample set around. But only if you look at either small companies/freelancers/startups (Yes, I know where I'm posting this).

For corporations (read: Process, more process, and some paperwork) that I had to work with this would not be possible. Deploying this strange new thing instead of clearcase/perforce/team services internally? Hard to sell maybe, but possible. Putting your source up somewhere else, out of control: No way.

Especially for verticals where the law heavily influences your ability to share just about any data (depending on country and laws this might include insurance companies, banks, energy provider, probably quite some more).

I've tried this route and the problem is that my company wants some open-source stuff and some closed source stuff. So a private Gitorious setup isn't great because we can't put our open-source stuff there.

If self-hosted Gitorious allowed for private & public projects then I could let it face the internet and have the perfect solution. I've seen a few implementations of private projects with merge requests, but sadly the Gitorious team has largely ignored them.

Don't want to be the gitorious fanboy here. I'm using both and I'm not involved with either project (although I kind of run an internal gitorious instance here at work).

I have to agree with you: Both on one server is not possible. The only way to make this work would be cumbersome:

Install a public and a private instance of gitorious. For private projects: Works just as before. For public projects: Push to somewhere and make the post-receive hook propagate the change to public/private.

Ugly? Hell, yes. It's nothing but a workaround.

On the other hand: You can mix GitHub and Gitorious just fine. Your client (if you use one, or the git cli) doesn't care about the hosts, so having http://myPrivateGitorious repositories next to http://github.com repositories would work fine and you gain the best of both worlds. It's the same system. You can easily push/pull/merge from one to the other, it's not like the decision to use one or the other has to be an XOR.

After getting fed up with Gitorious I made GitHaven (http://www.githaven.com/) which allows you to have public and private repositories and comes with a much simpler installer to boot.

For me it seem that the difference between these two hosts is probably more about mentality rather than if their source code is all open.

The github guys want to make money with git and gitorious people, well, just want an easy to host git repositories.

The project is supported by a company alright, but it seem to be more of a subsidiary rather than as a way to make money.

I, personally, want companies to profit from open source as directly as possible. It gives me comfort that Github is trying to turn a profit.

this is why i don't get it that pivotal doesn't charge for tracker. it would make me feel better.