Originally you declared:
> If you want nice things, you have to pay for them.
And I don't know how that fits in with people releasing / maintaining free software.
I responded to your first rant because you appeared to be 'going all fanboy' over github, declaring them a successful, superior business. I asked you if a company that hadn't turned a profit despite first mover advantage and a decade of trying could be termed a business ... and you weaselled out of that question.
If you believe Github isn’t a business, then you’re going to be sorely disappointed by Gitlab, whose business model is worse.
I’m done talking to you now.
The challenge discussing this with you is all your comments about Github are based around comparing them (favourably) to Gitlab.
> I'm done talking to you now.
This is a shame, as I'm consumed with curiosity on your take of today's news that Microsoft spent US$7b buying github.
From what you've described it sounds like they should have just cloned libgit2, rugged, and github-linguist, and rattled up their own gitlab over the weekend.
Uh...Gitlab is built upon libgit2, rugged and github-linguist. In other words, the core parts of Gitlab — the ones that interact with git are built, maintained and open-sourced by GitHub. And these are just the obvious dependencies. Github people contribute heavily to open-source projects that most Ruby websites use.
If you’re going to fanboy all over the place, fine, but at least know what you’re talking about when you do it. And don’t try to weasel out of it by talking about “core products” —- without GitHub’s substantial technical contributions to the infrastructural code that interacts with git, it’s a safe bet thst Gitlab wouldn’t exist. That’s core.