I appreciated the specific word choice there; 'disgusting' implies a strong, visceral reaction, as if to say GitLab's work is so far from the author's taste that it blocks them from considering the product, and didn't seem all that harsh if that's how the author actually feels.
In a counterintuitive way, it was nice to read -- it says that UI is important; that it shouldn't be an afterthought; that it has the power to actively invite people in or greatly repulse them instead.
- Use of space: GitLab has more empty space across the site. Elements have a bit too much padding for my tastes and are spaced a bit too far apart. Valuable screen space (top center) contains a lot of needless information on GitLab (table headers, project ID, language breakdown, a prompt to add a CONTRIBUTING file) which is either not present or located off to the side on GitHub.
- Color and typography: GitHub is one of the best sites at this, using pops of color for important buttons and really fun typography. I love how GitHub has your avatar "speak" a commit description, it's a great little touch. GitLab's design feels like it has less personality. Quick comparison: https://imgur.com/a/Ejd1Q1X
- Attention to detail: A bit less of it on GitLab -- icons and text don't vertically align in some places; several of the dropdown menus could use a bit of visual improvement, or have an ill-fitting item or two; in my screenshot above, GitLab's "Commit message" and "Target Branch" have inconsistent capitalization.
I actually agree with the author. Using GitLab is unpleasant. I’ve also tried cgit, Rhodecode, Gitea, Bitbucket, &c. GitLab just feels cludgey, personally.
I find comments on “professionalism” about a personal blog to be rather snooty and gatekeepy in tone. Reminds me of the unpleasant atmosphere of Lobste.rs.
In a counterintuitive way, it was nice to read -- it says that UI is important; that it shouldn't be an afterthought; that it has the power to actively invite people in or greatly repulse them instead.