
Ask HN: Is my project at a disadvantage for being hosted on a GitHub competitor? - pawadu
I have a number of open source projects hosted on sites that I see as alternatives to Github (gitlab, bitbucket and others).<p>I sometimes feel that my projects are at a major disadvantage for not being on github where all the mindshare seems to be. Do you feel this is true? If so, can we break the github more-or-less-monopoly?<p>(for the record, I think github is awesome and they provide a great product free of charge. I just don&#x27;t want them to be the only player in the market)
======
kapuru
This is something I just recently thought about as well. I somehow take
projects hosted on Github alternatives less serious - even though I probably
shouldn't. If you want to host your project on a Github alternative I
recommend using Gitlab, which I think is best alternative to Github.
Bitbuckets UI is just so cluttered that I often bounce after a few seconds.

------
tedmiston
Yes, this is certainly true. I've seen GitHub stars used as either (1)
"likes", or (2) a tech to try todo list. A good git host agnostic app that
covers both use cases could probably abstract enough that you could host on
Bitbucket, GitLab, etc and still have people notice.

That said, if you use any of the services that provide a free hacker tier to
open source projects, many only do that for GitHub projects today.

One workaround is to actually use another host, but mirror it back to GitHub.

------
dontJudge
> disadvantage for not being on github ... mindshare seems to be

Just have a mirror on github and they'll be none the wiser. Judging by how
many people think linux is developed on github.

------
pawadu
I know that at least some gitlab people hang out on HN. I am really curious
what they think of this issue.

In particular, I want to hear if they plan to make the hosted projects easier
to discover and the developer pages more attractive. The amount of information
developers can put on their gitlab and bitbucket homes is very limited. Does
it really require that much effort to add a short bio and some external
pointers (e.g. twitter, linkedin) to these pages?

~~~
jobvandervoort
Besides the points addressed by my colleague, we _absolutely_ want to make
hosted project easier to discover and developer pages more attractive.

Right now, GitLab.com is slow [0] and the interface is a little bland [1]. The
features to support open source projects are there (I'd say, but please let me
know what we miss), it's a matter of iteration before we should really be the
preferred option.

[0]: [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-
com/infrastructure/issues/59](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-
com/infrastructure/issues/59)

[1]: [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-
ce/issues/24304](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/24304)

~~~
tedmiston
I don't technical limitations are really the reason (I'm a GitLab fan and have
observed GitLab's product accelerating much faster than GitHub's). It's just
that the community has been established on GitHub for so many years.

~~~
johnnydoebk
I don't think it has something to do with the community. But rather that GL
and BB are losing to GH in terms of UI / UX. Well, at least I wanted to switch
to GL long ago, but couldn't due to unsatisfaction by their user interface.

~~~
tedmiston
They have been changing the UI quite a bit and GL has changed significantly
feature wise too in the past 12 months. It might be worth another look.

