Imagine running Guido out of his own fucking project
Imagine running Guido out of Python and still have the gall to argue they are acting on Python's best interests.
What a bunch of self-serving fools.
There would be no other incentive for companies to buy it.
A company might want to extend it's service offering with a build pipeline/CICD system, and buying GitLab would get them the best-in-class service.
Microsoft bought GitHub for much of the same reasons, and GitHub didn't went to hell after the acquisition.
I don't think it makes any sense to mention source hut because none of the features you mentioned are killer features (or relevant. Why should I care about implementation details of feature tracking?) and it completely fails to address GitLab's main value proposition: it's CICD system.
Anyone can put up any ticketing system. They are a dime a dozen. Some version control systems even ship with their own. CICD is a whole different ballgame. It's very hard to put together a CICD system that's easy to manage and has a great developer experience. Not even GitHub managed to pull that off. GitLab is perhaps the only one who pulled this off. A yams file with a dozen or so lines is all it takes to get a pipeline that builds, tests, and delivers packages, and it's easy to read and understand what happens. On top of that, it's trivial to add your own task runners hosted anywhere in the world, in any way you'd like. GitLab basically solved this problem. That's why people use it.
If anything, I thing Stack Overflow replaced Usenet as the source of informal technical advise.
Never heard of Experts Exchange beyond the jokes.
I've submitted this link because the topic is interesting to me, and !functional_programming@programming.dev is practically dead, with the last post dating back over 10 days.
For those who are down voting the contribution, be my guest and do better: submit interesting content.
It’s a way of saying “these are wrong and should be deprecated.”
They aren't wrong. No one in their right mind just throws away years of work delivering a stable production project just because a random clueless person in the internet said something. It's lunacy.
We have a client which is MAD cause the project is riddled with bugs, but the solution somehow is paying more attention. Except that it clearly isn’t feasible to pay more attention when you have to check, recheck and check again the same thing over and over…
By definition, automated testing means paying more attention, and doing it so well that the process is automated.
They say it’s a waste cause you can’t catch UI (...)
Show them a working test that's catching UI bugs. It's hard to argue against facts.
but they somehow think they are smarter than google or any other small or big company that do write test
Don't sell a solution because others are doing it. Sell a solution because it's a solution to the problem they are experiencing, and it's in their best interests to solve it. Appeals to authority don't work on everyone.
Also worth mentioning, Ubuntu 23.10 already ships with .NET 8.
I don’t think it’s a stupid thing to want to have code in the kernel, especially after spending all my time debugging this issue.
The way that you jumped straight onto broadcasting drama when your very first Linux kernel patch stumbled on the code review stage is a major red flag.
I would hate to work with you because I would feel that I would be risking being subjected to a very public character attack each time I had to review one of your patches.
but if it’s not readable it’s garbage.
Readability is often in the eye of the beholder, but knowing that a component implements a design pattern is all you need to know how it's used without even having to peek at the code.
I think the most vocal critics of design patterns are those who are clueless about design patterns, and they are criticising their use just because they are scared of stuff they don't know.
(proceeds to cry and click on "subscribe")
Not really. The mindset was actually to hire skilled developers just to dry up the market, so that their competitors would not have skilled labour to develop their own competing products and services.
Then the economy started to take a turn for the worse, and these same companies noted that not only they could not afford blocking their competitors from hiring people but also neither did their competitors. Twice the reasons to shed headcount.
It was not a coincidence that we saw all FANGs shed people at around the same time.