(I promise this will turn out favorable for gitlab)<p>When gitlab first came out, I found the amount of shameful copying of github distasteful. I thought, man these guys have not done an ounce of anything original, so what's the point in even encouraging this kind of slimyness?<p>But then Github stagnated, and stagnated some more. And gitlab went past the initial copying and started innovating and adding more features.<p>And now with their CI/CD, and fully integrated pipeline, they seem to be way, way ahead of Github, whereas Github seems to have focused more on handling the infrastructure needed for their sheer level of scale.<p>In Github's case, I bet they felt their hands were tied because they had a whole ecosystem around them (like all the CI/CD companies that tightly integrate). Gitlab didn't have that issue, and was free to integrate to their heart's content.<p>To be honest, the only reason I moved back to Github after trying Gitlab a couple years ago was the performance. But again, Gitlab seems to be the little engine that keeps chugging. They have a certain hunger about them to improve, that they're constantly and relentlessly chipping away at the software's flaws. And sytse is always active in all these threads armed with great answers to pretty much every single criticism leveled at them.<p>So at least for now, they seem to be a lot more hungry than Github, so kudos to them.<p>Once all this hubbub dies down, I may move all my repos to Gitlab, but mostly for the CI/CD pipeline.<p>Github has totally earned their success, but they did seem to be stagnating for a while there.