GitHub is a platform that hosts public and private code and provides software development and collaboration tools. Features include version control, issue tracking, code review, team management, syntax highlighting, etc. Personal plans ($0-50), Organizational plans ($0-200), and Enterprise plans are available.
$4
per month per user
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.2 out of 10
N/A
OpenShift is Red Hat's Cloud Computing Platform as a Service (PaaS) offering. OpenShift is an application platform in the cloud where application developers and teams can build, test, deploy, and run their applications.
Git is my favorite among all of the version control systems out there. It follows the Linux software philosophy of being built by many loosely coupled and small components that do one thing well. It's incredibly open, and its adoption in the open source community seems to be …
For us, we use both Git and GitHub so they were a package. I suppose you could use Git with another VCS/hosting service to track changes if it fit well enough, but for us we just went with design out of the box. We pay for the GitHub private repository for the extra security.
There are not many surviving alternatives for Git (maybe SVN) which in itself is quite meaningful. Git is the best versioning system of all time for programming, period. The difference between a good mathematical tool and sending .zip-s around emailing lists or FTP drives is so …
Git is the best Source Control Management Tool I've used. Every company, team, and project I've worked on professionally either used Git 100%, or was moving to Git, away from the alternatives like SVN. Git has all the features necessary, as well as a very large community of …
After using Subversion previously for a number of years, Git comes across as the new and improved source control approach. Git seems very suited to working with Agile:- branches can be created easily, allowing multiple developers to switch to them quickly, and having local …
GitHub is the ONLY version control system I've ever used. I used it from day 1 at Dev Bootcamp since they make a pretty big push for all students to learn git as a language and to use GitHub for version control. It is difficult to say how GitHub stacks up against the rest of …
Bitbucket has an interface that is much uglier and much more confusing to use. The learning curve is therefore much greater with Bitbucket. However, Bitbucket allows for free private repositories for small teams, which is a huge plus, and if your team is small enough, that …
GitHub holds up well against Gitlab and Bitbucket in terms of ease of use, documentation, support, and features for enterprise. However, it falls a bit flat on the pricing side with paid plans for private repos. It has been and remains the service of choice on which to post …
In my opinion, GitHub beats all of the competition.
The other services offer some things that could be considered benefits in some scenarios: Bitbucket has good integration with other Atlassian products, Gitlab is self-hosted and completely free, Beanstalk integrates with some …
Git and GitHub are so much easier to use. I didn't necessarily find the others that I've tried difficult, but they all had their quirks. GitHub has their quirks, but their quirks make sense once you really think about i. The other may or may not have command line options, …
The most direct competitor to GitHub that I can think of would be BitBucket from Atlassian. The biggest advantage that I know of for BitBucket would be that they support both git and Mercurial. If you have at least one team or project using Mercurial, then BitBucket would be …
Github and git, in general, is much better than SVN or Subversion for version tracking and code collaboration. It takes the best parts of SVN and fixes a lot of what was broken with it. Github's own UI has evolved really well over time and they have taken developer productivity …
We picked GitHub because it's what I was most familiar with when we started. We're testing out self-hosted Gitlab because it not only handles all the features we're using on GitHub, but it also has a continuous integration service which is currently implemented by a third party …
GitHub is the best git repository service available and the industry standard. It's fast, reliable, and constantly adding new services. Bitbucket and Gitlab are both good, free (or inexpensive) alternatives, but they lack some of the design and speed of GitHub. Both alternative …
Github has a much larger community of users than Gitlab, and its interface is slightly more 'clean' and easy to navigate. Github's brand name is also more recognizable and its users are generally very helpful and willing to contribute to exciting open source projects.
GitHub comes handy in terms of usage and capabilities, it is easy to use and quite a user friendly tools when it comes to user experience, with limited UI/UX and it has vast exposure when it comes to third party integration and being quite mature and yet evolving and popular …
Along with Github, I've used Bitbucket and Gitlab. Bitbucket integrates with FishEye, which allows you to institute Code Reviews and create a viable merge process. Gitlab offers similar built in tools. With Github, I'm not aware of any similar features, but this is likely due …
I prefer GitHub on a personal level because it is free for personal use. It allows me to work on things with friends, or have easy access to open source software because of this.
[We selected GitHub because] It can easily integrate with different IDEs like Eclipse, Intellij and many more. Can fork and commit without any disturbance in the team; code conflicts can be easily resolved. Can easily monitor the changes made and revert if any bugs were …
Microsoft Team Foundation Server was too heavy and too complex for fast dvelopment. The integration with opensource build solutions (i.e jenkins) was not explored but the main feedback on this tool was its complexity. CVS and SVN used to be standards in past years and fit …
It's way easier to use and integrate with other applications as it was the first application that was created. Even though, I feel there has to be improvements on how to handle the branching in Github, with constant use I feel pretty much comfortable.
Atlassian's Bitbucket and SourceTree products are Git compatible and in our opinion offer a more intelligible and well-organized UI. These products integrate with JIRA for project management, but these features come at a higher monetary cost than GitHub.
GitHub is the only Git Repository tool I have extensive experience with. As a free solution it's a powerful tool. And with minimal investment you are able to create private projects as well, which has an incredible return on investment.
The sole reason we are using GitHub is because everyone else is. I would say Bitbucket and GitLab are steps ahead of GitHub, but everyone is on and using GitHub so we should as well. I'm not saying that GitHub is a bad choice, but there are other options out there that provide …
Cleaner web interface and higher uptime. Bitbucket offers free private repositories and more formal pull request review features, so it is preferred for private/internal projects, but GitHub is better for hosting open source projects.
Even though Red Hat OpenShift has more overhead than many other Kubernetes flavors, we have selected Red Hat OpenShift because of it's focus on Security and because of it's excellent vendor support.
We have replaced our local Kubernetes with open shift entirely and it is by far the better product. Compared to Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service, it can be more difficult to configure. We currently utilize both (open shift onsite and EKS remotely) and find advantages of …
The other platforms are cloud based, and less relevant when you have to choose an on prem scenario. Red Hat OpenShift encapsulates Kubernetes and provides more, so that you have an all-in-one platform instead of dealing with various separate services. [Red Hat] OpenShift is …
We've done work on Docker and we've done work in Podman, which aren't really apples to apples as far as OpenShift because they're just purely containerization tools. They're not necessarily platforms. We did an evaluation on a tool, another Kubernetes-based tool, and I don't …
We evaluated the native Kubernetes before selecting Openshift because of Production Support, RBAC, Integration, and build capabilities, including Continuous Integration and Continuous Deployment.
Red Hat OpenShift is a container as a service platform. Ever since we started using it, we have saved a lot of money and time. OpenShift is outstandingly easy to use, manage and install, and It presents little learning curve for developers familiar with Git and administrators …
I found OpenShift and IBM Bluemix to be very similar, however in terms of our use case, we were not using these tools to create a production ready environment, these were to be able to create dev environments which could be torn down and spun up again quickly to give maximum …
Redhat OpenShift has been around for quite a while as I remember. I have found their public cloud to be easy to use and I haven't had to look at any other product. I have checked out Heroku but I am happy with OpenShift.
Cloud Foundry is open-source PaaS, started by VMware and spun out with other VMware-owned open-source code into EMC and VMware's Pivotal Software subsidiary. The Cloud Controller component is responsible for all management tasks. Being the main end point for the Cloud Foundry …
OpenShift is the first PaaS provider that I have used directly. However, if you use more traditional providers and pay extremely high monthly fees, I believe OpenShift should be given a chance to compete.
GIT is good to be used for faster and high availability operations during code release cycle. Git provides a complete replica of the repository on the developer's local system which is why every developer will have complete repository available for quick access on his system and they can merge the specific branches that they have worked on back to the centralized repository. The limitations with GIT are seen when checking in large files.
GitHub is an easy to go tool when it comes to Version Controlling, CI/CD workflows, Integration with third party softwares. It's effective for any level of CI/CD implementation you would like to. Also the the cost of product is also very competitive and affordable. As of now GitHub lacks capabilities when it comes to detailed project management in comparison to tools like Jira, but overall its value for money.
Red Hat OpenShift, despite its complexity and overhead, remains the most complete and enterprise-ready Kubernetes platform available. It excels in research projects like ours, where we need robust CI/CD, GPU scheduling, and tight integration with tools like Jupyter, OpenDataHub, and Quiskit. Its security, scalability, and operator ecosystem make it ideal for experimental and production-grade AI workloads. However, for simpler general hosting tasks—such as serving static websites or lightweight backend services—we find traditional VMs, Docker, or LXD more practical and resource-efficient. Red Hat OpenShift shines in complex, container-native workflows, but can be overkill for basic infrastructure needs.
Version control: GitHub provides a powerful and flexible Git-based version control system that allows teams to track changes to their code over time, collaborate on code with others, and maintain a history of their work.
Code review: GitHub's pull request system enables teams to review code changes, discuss suggestions and merge changes in a central location. This makes it easier to catch bugs and ensure that code quality remains high.
Collaboration: GitHub provides a variety of collaboration tools to help teams work together effectively, including issue tracking, project management, and wikis.
We had a few microservices that dealt with notifications and alerts. We used OpenShift to deploy these microservices, which handle and deliver notifications using publish-subscribe models.
We had to expose an API to consumers via MTLS, which was implemented using Server secret integration in OpenShift. We were then able to deploy the APIs on OpenShift with API security.
We integrated Splunk with OpenShift to view the logs of our applications and gain real-time insights into usage, as well as provide high availability.
Not an easy tool for beginners. Prior command-line experience is expected to get started with GitHub efficiently.
Unlike other source control platforms GitHub is a little confusing. With no proper GUI tool its hard to understand the source code version/history.
Working with larger files can be tricky. For file sizes above 100MB, GitHub expects the developer to use different commands (lfs).
While using the web version of GitHub, it has some restrictions on the number of files that can be uploaded at once. Recommended action is to use the command-line utility to add and push files into the repository.
I wouldn't necessarily say there is look everyday technology transform. I can see a trend wherein Red Hat OpenShift is adopting all the new technology trends and helping their customers align with their priorities and the emerging technology trends. I wouldn't call out various scope for development every day. There is scope for development. It is all how the organizations adopt it and how they deliver it to their customers. I don't want to call out there is scope for development. It's happening. It is a never ending process.
At the moment, I don't have anything to call out. We are experiencing Red Hat OpenShift and we can see every day they're coming up with new features as and when they come up with new features, we want to experience it more and more. We are looking for opportunities wherein this can be leveraged to help our users and partners.
Git has met all standards for a source control tool and even exceeded those standards. Git is so integrated with our work that I can't imagine a day without it.
GitHub's ease of use and continued investment into the Developer Experience have made it the de facto tool for our engineers to manage software changes. With new features that continue to come out, we have been able to consolidate several other SaaS solutions and reduce the number of tools required for each engineer to perform their job responsibilities.
OpenShift is really easy of use through its management console. OpenShift gives a very large flexibility through many inbuilt functionalities, all gathered in the same place (it's a very convenient tool to learn DevOps technics hands on) OpenShift is an ideal integrated development / deployment platform for containers
GitHub is a clean and modern interface. The underlying integrations make it smooth to couple tasks, projects, pull requests and other business functions together. The insights and reporting is really strong and is getting better with every release. GitHub's PR tooling is strong for being web based, i do believe a better code editor would rival having to pull merge conflicts into local IDE.
The virtualization part takes some getting used to it you are coming from a more traditional hypervisor. Customization options are not intuitive to these users. The process should be more clear. Perhaps a guide to Openshift Virtualization for users of RHV, VMware, etc. would ease this transition into the new platform
Redhat openshift is generally reliable and available platform, it ensures high availability for most the situations. in fact the product where we put openshift in a box, we ensure that the availability is also happening at node and network level and also at storage level, so some of the factors that are outside of Openshift realm are also working in HA manner.
Overall, this platform is beneficial. The only downsides we have encountered have been with pods that occasionally hang. This results in resources being dedicated to dead or zombie pods. Over time, these wasted resources occasionally cause us issues, and we have had difficulty monitoring these pods. However, this issue does not overshadow the benefits we get from Openshift.
I am not sure what the official Git support channels are like as I have never needed to use any official support. Because Git is so popular among all developers now, it is pretty easy to find the answer to almost any Git question with a quick Google search. I've never had trouble finding what I'm looking for.
There are a ton of resources and tutorials for GitHub online. The sheer number of people who use GitHub ensures that someone has the exact answer you are looking for. The docs on GitHub itself are very thorough as well. You will often find an official doc along with the hundreds of independent tutorials that answers your question, which is unusual for most online services.
Every time we need to get support all the Red Hat team move forward looking to solve the problem. Sometimes this was not easy and requires the scalation to product team, and we always get a response. Most of the minor issues were solved with the information from access.redhat.com
I was not involved in the in person training, so i can not answer this question, but the team in my org worked directly with Openshift and able to get the in person training done easily, i did not hear problem or complain in this space, so i hope things happen seamlessly without any issue.
We went thru the training material on RH webesite, i think its very descriptive and the handson lab sesssions are very useful. It would be good to create more short duration videos covering one single aspect of openshift, this wll keep the interest and also it breaks down the complexity to reasonable chunks.
I've used both Apache Subversion & Git over the years and have maintained my allegiance to Git. Git is not objectively better than Subversion. It's different. The key difference is that it is decentralized. With Subversion, you have a problem here: The SVN Repository may be in a location you can't reach (behind a VPN, intranet - etc), you cannot commit. If you want to make a copy of your code, you have to literally copy/paste it. With Git, you do not have this problem. Your local copy is a repository, and you can commit to it and get all benefits of source control. When you regain connectivity to the main repository, you can commit against it. Another thing for consideration is that Git tracks content rather than files. Branches are lightweight and merging is easy, and I mean really easy. It's distributed, basically every repository is a branch. It's much easier to develop concurrently and collaboratively than with Subversion, in my opinion. It also makes offline development possible. It doesn't impose any workflow, as seen on the above linked website, there are many workflows possible with Git. A Subversion-style workflow is easily mimicked.
While I don't have very much experience with these 2 solutions, they're two of the most popular alternatives to GitHub. Bitbucket is from Atlassian, which may make sense for a team that is already using other Atlassian tools like Jira, Confluence, and Trello, as their integration will likely be much tighter. Gitlab on the other hand has a reputation as a very capable GitHub replacement with some features that are not available on GitHub like firewall tools.
The Tanzu Platform seemed overly complicated, and the frequent changes to the portfolio as well as the messaging made us uneasy. We also decided it would not be wise to tie our application platform to a specific infrastructure provider, as Tanzu cannot be deployed on anything other than vSphere. SUSE Rancher seemed good overall, but ultimately felt closer to a DIY approach versus the comprehensive package that Red Hat OpenShift provides.
It's easy to understand what are being billed and what's included in each type of subscription. Same with the support (Std or Premium) you know exactly what to expect when you need to use it. The "core" unit approach on the subscription made really simple to scale and carry the workloads from one site to another.
This is a great platform to deployment container applications designed for multiple use cases. Its reasonably scalable platform, that can host multiple instances of applications, which can seamlessly handle the node and pod failure, if they are configured properly. There should be some scalability best practices guide would be very useful
Git has saved our organization countless hours having to manually trace code to a breaking change or manage conflicting changes. It has no equal when it comes to scalability or manageability.
Git has allowed our engineering team to build code reviews into its workflow by preventing a developer from approving or merging in their own code; instead, all proposed changes are reviewed by another engineer to assess the impact of the code and whether or not it should be merged in first. This greatly reduces the likelihood of breaking changes getting into production.
Git has at times created some confusion among developers about what to do if they accidentally commit a change they decide later they want to roll back. There are multiple ways to address this problem and the best available option may not be obvious in all cases.
Team collaboration significantly improved as everything is clearly logged and maintained.
Maintaining a good overview of items will be delivered wrt the roadmap for example.
Knowledge management and tracking. Over time a lot of tickets, issues and comments are logged. GitHub is a great asset to go back and review why x was y.
All of the above. Red Hat OpenShift going into a developer-type setting can be stood up very quickly. There's a very short period to have developers onboard to it and they're able to become productive much faster than a grow your own type solution.