112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
|
Git fails on efficiency once you add to it all of the third-party
software needed to give it a Fossil-equivalent feature set. Consider
[https://about.gitlab.com/|GitLab], a third-party extension to Git
wrapping it in many features, making it roughly Fossil-equivalent,
though [https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/install/requirements.html|much more
resource hungry] and hence more costly to run than the equivalent
Fossil setup. GitLab's requirements are tolerable when you're dedicating
a local rack server or blade to it, since that's about the smallest
thing you could call a "server" these days, but when you go to host that
in the cloud, you can expect to pay about 8⨉ as much to comfortably host
GitLab as for Fossil. This difference is largely due to basic
technology choices: Ruby and PostgreSQL vs C and SQLite.
The Fossil project itself is [./selfhost.wiki|hosted on a very small
|
|
|
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
|
Git fails on efficiency once you add to it all of the third-party
software needed to give it a Fossil-equivalent feature set. Consider
[https://about.gitlab.com/|GitLab], a third-party extension to Git
wrapping it in many features, making it roughly Fossil-equivalent,
though [https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/install/requirements.html|much more
resource hungry] and hence more costly to run than the equivalent
Fossil setup. GitLab's basic requirements are easy to accept when you're dedicating
a local rack server or blade to it, since that's about the smallest
thing you could call a "server" these days, but when you go to host that
in the cloud, you can expect to pay about 8⨉ as much to comfortably host
GitLab as for Fossil. This difference is largely due to basic
technology choices: Ruby and PostgreSQL vs C and SQLite.
The Fossil project itself is [./selfhost.wiki|hosted on a very small
|