[HN Gopher] Codeberg - Fast open source alternative to GitHub
___________________________________________________________________
Codeberg - Fast open source alternative to GitHub
Author : oblio
Score : 446 points
Date : 2023-04-07 10:18 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (codeberg.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (codeberg.org)
| Azadzadeh wrote:
| People don't seem to realize the risk of centralizing on a single
| provider and solution. Currently, it's like 90% of the FOSS
| projects are hosted on GitHub. It all seems smooth and all until
| one day you log in to their platform and find yourself
| essentially shunned-off from collaborating on FOSS scene [1] .
|
| I'm grateful Codeberg, sourcehut and other alternatives exist.
|
| One nitpick from my experience: Codeberg's static hosting gave me
| way too much internal server errors (probably because they are
| underfunded.)
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34817163
| jpe90 wrote:
| Since you mentioned sourcehut, I'll point out that their static
| hosting is excellent. I host my blog on there and have had no
| issues.
| zxwrt wrote:
| Not that excellent. They still don't have ipv6 support in
| 2023
| minus7 wrote:
| IIRC there were issues with IPv6 on the hardware, which
| will be replaced once services move to Europe, and IPv6
| will be available.
| whatyesaid wrote:
| There should always be a mirror or archive for projects that
| are used, yeah. It's probably easier to archive stuff when it's
| centralised to one platform.
|
| Collaborating on multiple platforms would make sense if not
| everyone used GitHub. It's the kind of thing that can be solved
| on a needed basis. As far as I know the only thing people hate
| about GitHub is it was proven copilot was stealing code from
| repos where it ignored licenses completely for collecting more
| training data.
|
| Your account being banned probably does fall under incentivised
| interests, aka circumventing censorship. Your country can
| literally say ban X or we ban your platform from our country.
| I'm not sure why you wouldn't do such things under a burner
| anyway given you're also breaking laws. The expectation should
| be that you don't make it.
| nu11ptr wrote:
| I agree, but I also like that everything is on github because
| it is a single place to search. Is there a meta-search engine
| for github/gitlab/codeberg/bitbucket/sourceforge/etc.? It would
| be useful and make it less essential that everything is with
| one provider.
|
| UPDATE: Before someone says "google" I'm specifically talking
| about a context-aware search engine that has knowledge of code-
| specific attributes like language/stars/etc. like github does,
| just across multiple repo providers
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| https://zzollo.co/ seems to be an option that popped up after
| searching for a bit.
| kelnos wrote:
| Google Code Search used to fulfill this niche, but sadly,
| like so many other Google products, was shut down years ago.
|
| I agree that it's nice to have a single place to search, but
| IMO that convenience is vastly overshadowed by the downsides
| of relying on a single platform.
| yunruse wrote:
| It seems to be it would help to have some sort of
| communication pattern, a la Mastodon and ActivityPub, such
| that these are all both interoperable, and as a bonus
| interchangeable when it comes to tooling.
| pjmlp wrote:
| We do realise, Sourceforge.
|
| It turns out most don't care.
| ploum wrote:
| Monopolies are always bad. Always. And Github is a
| proprietary software which is nearly a monopoly for hosting
| free software (how ironic, isn't it?). Exactly like
| sourceforge was, you are right.
|
| Each generation must learn it the hard way.
|
| https://ploum.net/2023-02-22-leaving-github.html
| hayst4ck wrote:
| > Monopolies are always bad. Always.
|
| I don't think that's true.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
|
| When monopolies can rival/influence/corrupt the power that
| would otherwise regulate them, that is the point at which
| monopolies are definitely bad.
| kelnos wrote:
| I agree with your examples, but at the same time, most
| public utilities and other natural monopolies, despite
| government regulation, still act in exploitative, anti-
| customer ways.
|
| I don't think anyone would hold up a utility company as a
| paragon of customer-friendliness. Ditto for phone
| companies and ISPs.
|
| So while it's too simplistic to just say "monopolies are
| bad", we still haven't found a way to have regulated
| monopolies that "play nicely" in the same ways companies
| in a competitive industry are required to do in order to
| stay relevant.
|
| > _When monopolies can rival /influence/corrupt the power
| that would otherwise regulate them, that is the point at
| which monopolies are definitely bad._
|
| I would argue that there's no "when" here. This happens
| in all cases.
| hayst4ck wrote:
| I think the subtly in the argument is that there are
| monopolies and alternative to monopolies and associated
| trade offs with those states.
|
| So the question is: are there cases for which a monopoly
| has a better cost/benefit ratio than whatever the
| alternative is.
|
| If you take a look at utilities, then theoretically, the
| upfront cost is passed on to consumers. So two different
| power utilities would spend twice the capital, which
| would then need to be passed on to consumers. Twice the
| repairs after a storm, twice the cost for infrastructure
| updates. The end state is what we see with home internet,
| you get a monopoly, but none of the monopoly regulation
| because "there's competition." Then there are mergers to
| watch out for, cartel behavior, etc.
|
| So my assertion is that when you apply regulation to a
| monopoly it might be better than the alternatives that
| probably need regulation anyway.
|
| > This happens in all cases.
|
| This is mildly off topic, but I think it applies here.
| This is a statement of inevitability about what is
| fundamentally a political battle. If, for example,
| citizens united was fixed, the tax burden for people who
| have over 10 mil were large, and corruption was criminal
| and prosecuted as such, then I think it's harder to make
| this argument.
|
| I think this idea of inevitability is the result of
| learned helplessness.
|
| I think the idea that monopolies will always exist in a
| state of conflict with the citizenry is true, but I don't
| think it's a foregone conclusion that the monopolies will
| definitely win. I think they are winning right now, but I
| think the idea that that their victory is inevitable is
| self defeating.
| hayst4ck wrote:
| The flip side is economies of scale.
|
| Github can implement code search, credential scanning, malware
| scanning, or any other number of other things and
| theoretically, every code repo can get it for free.
|
| When everything is centralized, adding a new feature costs _k_
| but gives _N_ benefit. When there are M different options
| adding a new feature costs _k * M_ for _N_ benefit.
|
| I don't think it's as black and white as centralization is bad,
| but I do agree that it gives microsoft undue power and that
| power can be a force for good or evil.
| kelnos wrote:
| Given that most of the alternative hosting services are based
| on a relatively small number of platforms (GitLab, Gitea,
| SourceHut), I would guess it's likely they'll get advanced
| features like the ones you mention, at least eventually.
| Certainly some of the less-well-funded hosting services may
| not have the resources to run all these things, though.
| enriquto wrote:
| > Github can implement code search
|
| Sounds great! When are they going to do it?
| emi2k01 wrote:
| Are you being sarcastic?
|
| If not, GitHub recently updated their search feature and
| it's pretty good.
|
| https://github.com/search/advanced
|
| https://docs.github.com/en/search-github/github-code-
| search/...
| [deleted]
| s1k3s wrote:
| Saving you a click: it runs on https://forgejo.org/ - a Git
| service written in go.
|
| HN talk about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34012307
| pipo234 wrote:
| Nice!
|
| Hope this one fares better than GitLab. At least they seem to
| have thought about governance from the start.
| patcon wrote:
| What's the "governance" failure? Though I don't use it, GitLab
| struck me as one of the darlings of how to run an open source
| company (I love all their public docs), but maybe I'm missing
| something?
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Gitlab is "open-core", not open source.
| andrewshadura wrote:
| Open core is a monetisation model, open source is
| licensing. GitLab is both open core and open source.
| mort96 wrote:
| Due to the open core monetisation model, a whole lot of
| GitLab is not open source; "GitLab" can't be said to be
| open-source, just parts of it. The monetisation model
| affects the licensing model.
| Lyngbakr wrote:
| Perhaps they're not referring to a governance failure as
| such, but rather contrasting a not-for-profit, community-led
| organisation with a publically-traded, for-profit business?
| <shrug>
| gizmo wrote:
| They totally ripped of the github UI and UX. They're all about
| free and open source, but they don't want to do the hard work of
| coming up with their own product. I would much rather use the
| for-profit original rather than a lazy open-source knockoff.
| hbbio wrote:
| Also, since resilience is key and avoiding dependence on
| centralized service, Radicle is high-quality open source project
| building a decentralized git hosting service:
|
| https://radicle.xyz/
|
| Disclaimer: I just love what they do, I am not part of the team
| and _don 't_ hold any of their tokens.
| n1c00o wrote:
| I'm pretty sure I haven't understood correctly but Git is
| decentralized by default, Git is a decentralized VCS
| Entinel wrote:
| > Our mission is to support the creation and development of Free
| Software; therefore we only allow repos licensed under an
| OSI/FSF-approved license. For more details see Licensing article.
| However, we sometimes tolerate repositories that aren't perfectly
| licensed and focus on spreading awareness on the topic of
| improper FLOSS licensing and its issues.
|
| If you aren't doing FOSS software and aren't "tolerated" you
| aren't allowed here. This is not an alternative to Github.
| mort96 wrote:
| It's an alternative to GitHub for the FOSS hosting use-case.
| glitchc wrote:
| Is this really worth throwing a hissy fit over? The OSI list
| alone is quite broad [1]. I see many licenses there that do not
| restrict inclusion of code in commercial products.
|
| [1] https://opensource.org/licenses/
| 2h wrote:
| Is this a joke? OSI essentially means only "corporate
| friendly" licenses are allowed. If someone wants to protect
| their work under a non-commercial license, they can do that
| on GitHub but not CodeBerg.
| glitchc wrote:
| Note that Codeberg supports both FSF and OSI licenses. I
| listed just the OSI ones in response to the OP's claim that
| their stance somehow prohibits commercial access to source
| code listed on their site. FSF licenses are listed here
| [2]. Goodness, FOSS seems to stir some strong emotions on
| HN.
|
| [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Is this a joke? OSI essentially means only "corporate
| friendly" licenses are allowed. If someone wants to protect
| their work under a non-commercial license, they can do that
| on GitHub but not CodeBerg.
|
| Yes, use-restricted licenses aren't Free Software. Codeberg
| is a non-profit that promotes Free Software. Not a joke,
| just out of mission.
| LambdaComplex wrote:
| > OSI essentially means only "corporate friendly" licenses
| are allowed
|
| The GPL and AGPL are both on the list that you're replying
| to.
| 2h wrote:
| Those both allow commercial use, so you just proved my
| point.
| throwawaaarrgh wrote:
| It is an alternative, in the same way Vegan food is an
| alternative to meats.
| goodrubyist wrote:
| Your juvenile point aside, it does seem like a legitimate
| alternative for FOSS.
| jackothy wrote:
| Why is his point juvenile? I enjoyed the comparison. Going
| FOSS only/going vegan can be challenging and limiting, but
| is arguably the most ethical choice. In the abstract, I see
| many similarities between the FSF/Codeberg philosophy and
| vegan philosophy.
| kelnos wrote:
| It's juvenile because the obvious implication is that
| making this choice is _unnecessarily_ limiting, and only
| someone willing to cut off their nose to spite their face
| would do it. (Maybe my biases are showing, though, and I
| 'm reading too much into that.)
|
| Regardless, the analogy only runs skin-deep. There is
| precious little you have to "give up" if you stop using
| proprietary software. (Ok, ok, gaming probably takes a
| big hit, but that's about it.) If you become vegan, you
| give up the vast majority of dishes you might find in the
| diets of most cultures around the world. (You even lose
| quite a bit from cultures that are largely vegetarian.)
| And the alternatives are just not the same, at least not
| yet. For many pieces of software, the open source
| alternative is comparable, or even superior.
| djha-skin wrote:
| Codeberg runs on Forjego, the soft fork of Gitea. If you don't
| like the restrictions of Codeberg, running your own copy of it
| is super easy and relatively cheap. Further, they are working
| on a fediverse feature allowing PRs between instances. If this
| happens, your individual instance can PR with Codeberg, but
| still have private repos. I'm excited about this.
| hnarn wrote:
| It's "Forgejo" (as in a forge), not "Forjego". I personally
| don't think it's a great name as this confusion perhaps
| proves. Anyway, I had no idea about the plans to interface
| with ActivityPub, that is really cool.
| usea wrote:
| Not even public domain or CC0 is allowed. Your license
| absolutely _must_ restrict the rights of others to be
| permissible.
| commoner wrote:
| That's not true. Codeberg hosts public domain and CC0
| projects.
|
| According to the Codeberg docs:[1]
|
| > For documentation, writing, and other non-code assets, a
| Creative Commons (CC) licence can be used, but note that only
| the following CC licences are considered free (sorted from
| protective to unconditional):
|
| > - CC-BY-SA
|
| > - CC-BY
|
| > - CC0
|
| > Like CC themselves, Codeberg recommends against using a CC
| licence on code.[2]
|
| CC0 is classified by the FSF under "Free licenses, compatible
| with the GNU GPL", so Codeberg definitely accepts CC0
| projects.[3] Also, licenses such as the Unlicense (which is
| approved by both the FSF and the OSI) make it easy to
| dedicate code to the public domain with a legal fallback for
| jurisdictions that do not recognize the public domain.[4]
|
| Public domain repos exist on Codeberg, for example:
|
| - https://codeberg.org/streams/streams (public domain
| declaration)
|
| - https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep (CC0)
|
| - https://codeberg.org/youngchief/feddy (Unlicense)
|
| ---
|
| [1] https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/
|
| [2] https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-
| comm...
|
| [3] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
|
| [4] https://unlicense.org
| Proven wrote:
| [dead]
| lrvick wrote:
| I moved all my company repos to Codeberg because unlike Github
| it has proper support for git signature enforcement, and I can
| self host whenever I want for free so I am not locked in
| because the platform itself is open source. No one can censor
| me because I can put it on my own domain any time with modest
| effort.
|
| 100% of all repos I have as a company other than some internal
| documentation are FLOSS.
|
| I am of the strong opinion closed source software should not
| exist, and you can be a very successful and well paid software
| engineer spending the majority of your time working on open
| source software if you care enough to pursue that path.
|
| Maybe you do not make quite as much money when you dial the
| greed down a bit, but you contribute to building a society with
| better collaboration and faster progress that will benefit us
| all.
|
| We should build open source community around open source
| projects and tools where we can fix issues ourselves instead of
| hoping a central for profit company will do it for us. IMO the
| only projects that should stay on Github are ones that believe
| centralized dictatorships like Microsoft are best equipped to
| govern software development.
| anonzzzies wrote:
| Exactly.
| commoner wrote:
| Services don't need to handle every single use case to be
| viable alternatives. GitHub does host proprietary software, but
| it is most well known for being a place to collaborate on free
| and open source software. Codeberg addresses this primary use
| case in a more focused way than GitHub intends to, and because
| of this, Codeberg is an excellent alternative to GitHub.
| hnarn wrote:
| You can both be right. The title as it stands describes
| Codeberg as a "Fast Open Source Alternative to GitHub" and
| I'd agree that it's a confusing title to say the least.
|
| What we're really talking about here is a free-as-in-beer
| SaaS service that primarily caters to open source software
| repositories. This isn't clear in the title, because "Open
| Source" in this context can be read both as the back-end
| itself being open source (which it is), or more correctly --
| but much less obviously -- that it's an alternative for open
| source repositories compared to GitHub.
|
| Codeberg uses Forgejo[1] which in turn is a soft fork of
| Gitea[2], and anyone can use these two projects to self-host
| their proprietary codebase -- but the title for this post in
| no way makes it clear what Codeberg actually is.
|
| One could literally just take the first thing you see on
| their website and it would be a much better description:
|
| > Codeberg is a collaboration platform and Git hosting for
| free and open source software, content and projects.
|
| [1]: https://forgejo.org/
|
| [2]: https://github.com/Codeberg-org/gitea
| timwaagh wrote:
| It's only a great alternative if you believe GitHub deserves
| to die because it hosts everyone and making proprietary
| software should be made as difficult as possible. Which is
| the same as being against people making a living from
| building and selling software. ie you are against the
| existence of programming as a profession. In specifically
| that case this is superior to GitHub.
| [deleted]
| haleudo wrote:
| > It's only a great alternative if you believe GitHub
| deserves to die
|
| Geez, why so extreme? They choose whom they support for
| free, and they choose FLOSS projects with similar
| goals/philosophies. If your project has a different
| philosophy, fine, up to you, but it's not something they
| want to spend their time to support for free. You are
| welcome to go somewhere else, including going to or staying
| at GitHub.
|
| Nobody wants anything "to die". It's about providing
| alternatives for people who are not entirely happy. If you
| are, fine, nobody forces you to anything. Just like you
| can't force the Codeberg people to provide something to you
| for free which they are not comfortable with.
| jbergens wrote:
| If all they wanted was to be free only for OSS they could
| have made their priceplan that way. Now they basically
| forbids non-OSS.
| cxr wrote:
| You could almost certainly pay to host non-open source
| projects on Codeberg. It happens to be that the price is
| unlisted, though (and it's probably higher than what you
| or anyone else would want to spend, anyway).
| allioeddie wrote:
| This sort of myopic, self-important, holier-than-thou
| perspective is why the open source community is so rarely
| successful in anything it tries to do for itself. Whatever
| you think Github's most known or most useful featureset is,
| the fact of the matter is it dominates because they don't
| draw philosophical lines in the sand and exclude people as a
| result. It's a big tent, all are welcome, and as a result, it
| has near universal coverage in the industry, so there's no
| burden to ask users to sign up or familiarize themselves with
| the platform in order to contribute. Everyone already has a
| GH account, and a lot of the driver of that is the private
| repositories that they host for business. Of the people I've
| worked with, fewer than 10% of them have ever made a single
| FOSS contribution, but they all have Github accounts.
|
| I don't want to learn a different UI for contributing to FOSS
| than the one I use for my daily work. I frankly do not care
| about the ethos of FOSS enough, neither do almost any
| developers, relative to the field, however overrepresented
| FOSS awareness is on HackerNews. I contribute back to open
| source when it's convenient - and not too expensive - to do
| so; making it _less_ convenient so the host can draw an
| arbitrary philosophical line in the sand is going to serve no
| purpose but to decrease contributions.
|
| FOSS maintainers need to understand that the FOSS ethical and
| philosophical perspective is not universal - it is, in fact,
| quite rare in the industry. They need to understand that
| contributions and use are driven by utility and convenience
| and economics, not morality. Sacrificing anything utility-
| wise or convenience-wise for philosophy is just shooting
| themselves in the foot.
| mort96 wrote:
| Wow, entitled much? Nobody owes you anything, nobody is
| obliged to host your code. If you want to use the same UI
| for your closed/work projects and your FOSS projects, you
| can host your own instance; Forgejo is FOSS. Codeberg seems
| to be focused at providing a free service to the FOSS
| community, _and that's okay_. You don't get to be mad at
| that.
| ipaddr wrote:
| People are entitled to reactions to ads. This is an ad..
| this is one reaction.
|
| Parent will not use.. I'm guessing you won't use them
| over github. If 1% readership uses them I would be
| shocked. 99% of the people commenting won't use them.
|
| Now you are saying people can't express themselves
| because nothing is owed. For every ad watched a comment
| is owed by the watcher. That's owed.
| mort96 wrote:
| Sir when someone on their own volition shares a service
| they find useful, that's not an ad. It's an ad if
| Codeberg is in any way involved. Do we have a reason to
| believe they are? Nothing in this Oblio user's page
| suggest any involvement with Codeberg.
| misnome wrote:
| You do if they are advertising as an alternative - that
| is specifically inviting comparisons.
| mort96 wrote:
| They advertise themselves as an alternative to GitHub for
| FOSS projects. Nothing wrong with that.
| cinntaile wrote:
| The title of this HN post doesn't reflect that, Codeberg
| itself is clear about that though. Instead it should be
| "Codeberg - Fast Open Source Github Alternative for FOSS
| projects"
| staunton wrote:
| > the open source community is so rarely successful in
| anything it tries to do for itself.
|
| Strongly disagree. Given how hard decentralized
| collaboration seems to be in general, I'm amazed at what
| has been achieved. Imagine the internet and associated
| buisnesses without open source software.
| trallnag wrote:
| Everyone is welcome at Github? Just recently Github banned
| a few Russian developers. Probably to comply with
| sanctions.
| commoner wrote:
| > I don't want to learn a different UI for contributing to
| FOSS than the one I use for my daily work.
|
| Codeberg is an instance of the FOSS forge platform Forgejo,
| which is a fork of Gitea. As FOSS projects, Forgejo and
| Gitea can be used to host any kind of software, proprietary
| or open source, without restriction. It is entirely
| possible for a person to use Forgejo/Gitea to contribute to
| both work projects and off-work projects, even if the work
| projects are proprietary.
|
| If your employer chooses to use GitHub instead of
| Forgejo/Gitea, nobody else is obligated to stick with
| GitHub to make it more convenient for you to contribute.
| FOSS projects may choose Codeberg for its other advantages,
| such as its superior privacy policy and the fact that
| Codeberg does not automatically resell content from its
| hosted repositories as a proprietary service (like GitHub
| does with Copilot).
| ipaddr wrote:
| They display the code publicly for others to read. The
| privacy policy has no effect on companies using these
| repos for the next code-assist plugin
| raytube wrote:
| I don't know how deep copilot delves, and if it has
| access to all repos, but I am not comfortable with that.
| I am not even comfortable with a major player such as MS
| having access to intellectual gold.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _FOSS maintainers need to..._
|
| This is a common misconception. We don't need to do
| anything. We build things on our terms, and set policies
| how we see fit. If that increases friction so that people
| like you decide not to contribute, that's a shame, but
| that's a trade off we're willing to make.
|
| And regardless of all that, advocating for a single
| platform for anything (whether proprietary or open source)
| is just a bad idea. GitHub does have a lot of things going
| for it, but it's a single point of failure, run by an
| entity that can decide to change the terms of the service
| in any way it pleases. We might hope and assume they won't
| do anything destructive (since most destructive things
| would be detrimental to themselves as well), but stranger
| things happen.
|
| At any rate, your complaint is fairly specious: Platforms
| like Gitea (which Codeberg uses) and GitLab are similar
| enough to GitHub that the usage flow for third-party
| contributions is pretty similar and requires virtually no
| effort to learn. (In fact, Gitea and GitLab have been
| criticized in the past for copying GitHub too much.) Sure,
| if you were going to use a Gitea- or GitLab-based provider
| to _host_ your own stuff, you 'd have to learn quite a bit
| more if you were coming from GitHub. But just making a
| contribution isn't much of a hurdle to jump: the main
| hurdle is having to create yet another account, though many
| Gitea and GitLab instances allow you to sign in using OAuth
| and your GitHub credentials.
|
| It's fine that you don't feel the desire to make principled
| stands on things like this, but it's unfair of you to talk
| down so harshly on those of us who do. I'm sure you have
| some causes that are important to you that I don't share,
| but I wouldn't criticize you for those, or for how you
| decide to spend your spare time.
| keb_ wrote:
| > the open source community is so rarely successful in
| anything it tries to do for itself.
|
| What are you basing this on? I use open-source tools and
| products everyday for work.
| xigoi wrote:
| > all are welcome
|
| Except for those who don't want their code to be used for
| training proprietary AI models.
| uncleDingle wrote:
| I read the Copilot terms, they only use public repos for
| AI training. Private repos are not used for training.
| I've since privated all of my non-forked repos.
| kelnos wrote:
| But maybe some of us want to share our work publicly, but
| still not have GitHub's proprietary models trained on our
| code?
| EFreethought wrote:
| Copilot should be opt-in, not opt-out.
| natrys wrote:
| You haven't explained why drawing a philosophical line is
| somehow "self-important" and "holier-than-thou
| perspective". They are targetting like minded people which
| is their prerogative, if that doesn't appeal to you then
| that's too bad. But when you say this moral stand is why
| they won't ever have market reach like Github, you are
| presuming that they even _want_ that (maybe because of the
| implicit assumption that _everyone_ do want that). But a
| cursory look at their landing page shows they are a non-
| profit and do not want market share or your "contribution"
| if it's not coming from right place. Your rant assumes they
| don't understand the economics, but clearly they do - they
| just don't care. But why is that shooting themselves in the
| foot?
|
| To be a bit more cynical, Github alternatives are a dime a
| dozen. It's not clear to me that their market segmentation
| is hurting them. It seems to me that it's the only thing
| that's putting them on the map, otherwise they would just
| be a drop in the ocean.
| PicassoCTs wrote:
| Every animal is welcome in the "yourTheSausage"-stables, as
| long as its willing to put in free work and pulls that AI
| plow.
| jraph wrote:
| What if your goal is not being successful in term of
| absolute number of users no matter what but instead to
| promote something?
|
| It's fortunate that sometimes people refuse to build big
| tents and instead push for a better world.
|
| > They need to understand that contributions and use are
| driven by utility and convenience and economics, not
| morality
|
| You are wrong. GNU's whole existence is for moral reasons,
| and their tools are pervasive and you "typically" depend on
| them. It might not be everybody, even most people, but it's
| still a thing.
|
| > I frankly do not care about the ethos of FOSS enough
|
| You need to understand that some people do, and will
| promote it.
|
| > I don't want to learn a different UI for contributing to
| FOSS
|
| And I don't like to have to use proprietary software to
| contribute to FOSS [1]. How do we do? Do we please you and
| go for GitHub, or do we work towards this goal?
|
| I personally won't optimize for convenience no matter what.
| Convenience is killing our planet. We actually need to take
| our fingers out to make the world work. We can't live
| forever effortless. This is the pragmatic path, actually.
| I'm not arguing against convenience, I'm the first to like
| it, but things have various aspects worth taking in
| account, convenience only being one of them.
|
| Not that I don't find Forgejo not convenient. Pretty much
| the opposite. I like its UX.
|
| [1] https://drewdevault.com/2022/03/29/free-software-free-
| infras...
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| _> It's fortunate that sometimes people refuse to build
| big tents and instead push for a better world._
|
| In general I prefer if people keep their politics out of
| IT infrastructure. We don't all agree on what makes the
| world better and what makes it worse.
|
| That said, I don't have a problem with this particular
| project. It's absolutely fine to create a git hosting
| solution specifically for open source as open source is
| itself a very big tent spanning a wide range of
| ideologies and groups that are otherwise hostile towards
| each other.
|
| It is in fact commercial closed source software that is
| increasingly subject to political restrictions that are
| justified by supposedly making the world a better place.
| jraph wrote:
| > In general I prefer if people keep their politics out
| of IT infrastructure
|
| You need to make choices that will have tradeoffs anyway.
| Unless you find a consensual choice, which is very rare,
| you might be picking mainstream ones, which are not
| neutral.
|
| Neutrality does not exist. For instance, for any software
| you need to choose, it will be either proprietary or open
| source. Both have political implications.
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| I agree that some choices cannot be avoided, but others
| can and should be avoided.
|
| In my opinion, we should avoid linking the use of IT
| infrastructures to political issues such as systems of
| government, wars, climate change, gender identity,
| religion or anything else that is unrelated to the
| technical aspects of that infrastructure.
|
| Open source licences themselves are a good example of how
| I think it should be done. They do not impose any
| unnecessary political restrictions. They only impose
| specific rules related to source code. I think that's a
| good idea and we should apply this idea to other IT
| infrastructures as well.
| jraph wrote:
| What makes IT infrastructures special compared to
| anything else that we should avoid political matters?
|
| For me they are critical and omnipresent. So crucial, in
| fact, that they are somewhat at the center of political
| matters nowadays. They are probably a core part of many
| policies.
|
| And I believe the way they are done cannot avoid
| politics.
|
| Trying hard to project into myself into your perspective,
| I'm trying to compare them to roads, which are
| infrastructure too. You could say they should be neutral
| and let anybody use them without discrimination...
|
| ... but they are not neutral. The way they are built
| consume more or less energy, have various environmental
| implications, they more or less encourage usage of cars
| or trains or planes depending on how the network is
| organized, how they are maintained, which facilities are
| nearby roads... And many roads are not very usable
| without cars so they actually discriminate.
|
| I believe the same kind of things apply to IT
| infrastructure. Most choices will have political
| implications and therefore you'd actually be careful when
| designing them.
|
| Now, regardless of whether IT infrastructure can be kept
| neutral (which I don't think is possible), I actually
| think that we should not and that we'd better work hard
| to leverage, and design them the best we can to limit our
| environmental footprint (for instance).
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| I already conceded that it is not possible to avoid all
| politics. There are political decisions to be made that
| are directly related to the infrastructures themselves,
| their functioning, their economics, their accessibility,
| the power structures they enable, etc. I did not mean to
| exclude these political aspects.
|
| What I meant very specifically is that access to IT
| infrastructures in the widest sense of the word
| (including source code) should not be restricted based on
| political opinions or fault lines.
|
| Going further, I would not even restrict access to
| criminals as long as the criminality is not related to
| the functioning of the infrastructure itself. I believe
| that such restrictions would threaten the infrastructures
| themselves, make them worse for everybody or at least
| cause unacceptable levels of collateral damage.
|
| I agree that absolute neutrality doesn't exist. But
| throwing out the whole concept of neutrality just because
| neutrality has its limits would be a bad idea. E.g.,
| network neutrality has a very specific meaning. It
| doesn't mean that networks can be neutral in absolutely
| every way.
| goodpoint wrote:
| So we can arbitrarily label whatever we dislike as
| "political" and then demand people to "their politics out
| of $thing"?
|
| That's not how it works. There are no neutral positions.
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| What I mean by "keep out" is that I don't want political
| opinions or fault lines to determine access to IT
| infrastructures.
|
| I worry that this is where we're headed, but as I said,
| hosting open source git repositories is not that and I
| have no problem with it whatsoever.
|
| I think we can and should be neutral with regard to
| _some_ distinctions in _some_ specific contexts. That's
| not the same as saying there is a neutral position in
| general.
| goodpoint wrote:
| > What I mean by "keep out" is that I don't want
| political opinions or fault lines to determine access to
| IT infrastructures.
|
| What you just wrote is itself a political opinion. *Your*
| political opinion on how to access infrastructure.
|
| You keep ignoring what other people are saying it this
| thread and the point still stands.
| rakoo wrote:
| You cannot remove politics from IT infrastructure.
| Politics is everywhere. Politics is deciding how we live
| together as a society; the very fact we're having this
| discussion _is_ politics.
|
| It's the fable of being apolitical that is a mistake,
| because in doing so you are strengthening the status quo
| and prevent others from thinking about the situation and
| changing it.
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| I agree that nothing is completely free of politics. What
| I'm advocating is to tolerate a wider spectrum of
| political opinions regarding access to IT infrastructure
| than we may be willing to tolerate in other contexts.
|
| I believe that this stance can be justified on a
| technical level that is only very remotely linked to the
| main political ideologies of our time.
| jwmcq wrote:
| > I prefer if people keep their politics out of IT
| infrastructure.
|
| I find it interesting that people only ever say this when
| talking about free software initiatives. Nobody moans
| about software getting 'political' when talking about
| closed-source companies enforcing intellectual property
| laws that were _literally written by politicians_.
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| _> I prefer if people keep their politics out of IT
| infrastructure.
|
| >> I find it interesting that people only ever say this
| when talking about free software initiatives. Nobody
| moans about software getting 'political' when talking
| about closed-source companies enforcing intellectual
| property laws that were literally written by
| politicians._
|
| I'm sorry, but I find your extremely selective quoting
| offensive. You are distorting the meaning of my comment,
| in fact turning it into its exact opposite. You even left
| out the first two words of the sentence you are quoting
| just to make your point.
|
| I said "In general I prefer..." followed by two
| paragraphs justifying why I think that this general
| principle doesn't apply to open source and to this
| project in particular.
| jwmcq wrote:
| If your 'general principle' doesn't apply to the most
| important and popular software in the world (open source)
| then perhaps it is not very general, and not very
| principled.
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| My general principle is that political opinions as well
| as political conflicts and fault lines should not
| determine access to IT infrastructures.
|
| Now, open source licences themselves as well as
| distribution platforms such as public git repositories
| guarantee access to some very important global IT
| infrastructures.
|
| Perhaps you can see why my general principle cannot apply
| to open source in the same way it applies to other things
| that fall under "their politics" - the rather sloppy term
| I originally used.
|
| It's the same reason why the principle of tolerance
| cannot apply to tolerance itself in the same way it
| applies elsewhere.
|
| I think principles are always contradictory in the
| absolute. They only make sense as directions along
| specific dimensions and can rarely be applied to
| themselves.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _My general principle is that political opinions as
| well as political conflicts and fault lines should not
| determine access to IT infrastructures._
|
| Then you're going to be disappointed, because politics is
| intrinsically intertwined with software and IT
| infrastructure. The fact that so much IT infra is built
| on top of open source and free software means that
| discussion is inescapable.
|
| The fact that corporations need to track the licensing of
| the software they use (both for proprietary and open
| source software) is enough proof of that.
| kelnos wrote:
| Regardless of what you said in your later paragraphs,
| statements of the form "I prefer to keep politics out of
| X" are often naive, as is the case here. Unfortunately,
| politics is everywhere, and ignoring that only serves to
| ignore important aspects of reality that can affect
| outcomes you care about.
|
| Politics is a part of IT infrastructure, full stop.
| Ignoring that won't make it go away. The discussion on
| this post is proof of that.
| haleudo wrote:
| > In general I prefer if people keep their politics out
| of IT infrastructure.
|
| Fine, then go somewhere else and don't use Codeberg. Your
| criticism is part of bringing politics into this. It's
| about freedom and choice. You have the choice to go
| somewhere else, nobody is forcing you.
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| Quoting myself: "That said, I don't have a problem with
| this particular project. It's absolutely fine to create a
| git hosting solution specifically for open source..."
| indymike wrote:
| > This sort of myopic, self-important, holier-than-thou
| perspective is why the open source community is so rarely
| successful in anything it tries to do for itself
|
| If the goal is to share code, between just BSD Unix and
| Linux, open source would be incredibly successful. When you
| look at languages, development tools, databases and
| networking, a lot of FOSS has been very successful.
|
| > Github's most known or most useful featureset is, the
| fact of the matter is it dominates because they don't draw
| philosophical lines in the sand and exclude people as a
| result.
|
| The people who authored Codeberg have an agenda and are
| very direct about it. It is their property, and their right
| to do what they are doing... just as it is your right to
| vocalize you don't like it.
|
| > I don't want to learn a different UI for contributing to
| FOSS than the one I use for my daily work.
|
| Ok. Fair enough. I think I said roughly the same thing
| about git back when everything was CVS and Subversion.
|
| > They need to understand that contributions and use are
| driven by utility and convenience and economics, not
| morality.
|
| I make code all day. Some of the things I make have little
| monetary value to me or my company but might help others.
| It's not about morality, its just me doing what I want to
| do with my time and skills. I've made friends, built
| companies, and got way more out of FOSS than I've ever
| contributed to FOSS.
|
| > Sacrificing anything utility-wise or convenience-wise for
| philosophy is just shooting themselves in the foot.
|
| I think you are missing a very big point. Sharing with
| others isn't a "philosophy" it is an economic
| transaction... an exchange of value.
| croes wrote:
| Not an alternative for everybody
| internetter wrote:
| So what?
| bilqis wrote:
| That is factually true, because github allows non-free and/or
| proprietary licenses.
| Matl wrote:
| I hate how on Hacker News it's always the corporate,
| proprietary, market that is cast as the underdog. You know the
| one who get all the press coverage and has VC money behind it.
| kelnos wrote:
| What do you expect for a site created originally to support
| communication and community among startup founders? YC from
| the very start was an archetype of the SV startup ethos: be
| economically subversive, disrupt the mainstream corporate
| choices, engage in capitalism at its fullest, all so you can
| take the place of and become the huge corporation you set out
| to compete with.
|
| To many people in this world, startup founders are the
| underdog. But they seem to forget that, at some point in
| their growth, they stop being the underdog and instead become
| the incumbent.
|
| Unfortunately, this mindset often taints the attitudes of
| people who post here. The term "hacker" used to be primarily
| associated with counter-culture types, those lower on the
| corporate totem pole, but more recently it's also come to be
| associated with people who "hack" capitalism and become
| financially, economically, and career-track successful.
| skrtskrt wrote:
| hacker news sees creating a company and tearing up
| regulations as the ultimate form of altruism and bravery
|
| add in a side of guzzling right wing talking points from a
| fire hose and claiming to be a philosopher-economist and
| you've got a nice front page post discussion
| classified wrote:
| And don't forget the saving-the-world heroics.
| bingobango123 wrote:
| If you say anything vaguely right wing on this site you're
| shadowbanned within the hour. It's basically reddit
| Arnavion wrote:
| I package some software hosted on Codeberg. One annoying thing is
| that it doesn't have an RSS feed for "releases" like GitHub does,
| so the dev has to email me every time they make a release.
|
| https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/693
| jacooper wrote:
| This has been added to gitea/forgejo
|
| https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/21696
| Arnavion wrote:
| Yes, I know. The codeberg issue I linked has a link to the
| upstream gitea issue, which was closed as completed. But
| presumably codeberg.org hasn't updated their gitea to have
| that feature yet.
| jacooper wrote:
| Didn't they recently upgrade 1.19? It should include this
| change
| Reitet00 wrote:
| Nope: https://codeberg.org/api/v1/version
| Arnavion wrote:
| You could see for yourself, you know. Picking a random
| repo from the Codeberg org: $ curl -LD
| - 'https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/pages-
| server/releases.atom' HTTP/2 404
| sylware wrote:
| Is codeberg.org finally friendly to noscript/basic (x)html
| browsers?
|
| (account creation/major use case/etc).
| cabirum wrote:
| Codeberg is basically a public Gitea instance, so it's not a
| completely new product.
| grey_earthling wrote:
| They also co-ordinate development of Forgejo, a soft fork of
| Gitea (and Codeberg now runs Forgejo rather than Gitea).
| pbronez wrote:
| Forgejo is pretty neat. They're developing
| https://forgefed.org/ , which is an ActivityPub extension for
| software forges. If it works, it'll extend the decentralized
| nature of git to issues, pull requests, etc.
| [deleted]
| chetanmittaldev wrote:
| IMO Gitlab could be the best alternative to Github but even that
| doesn't have the number of open source projects hosted on Github.
| Rather than an alternative Codeberg is an another option for
| hosting software code for free.
| hgs3 wrote:
| What frustrates me about GitHub is that GitHub Sponsors does not
| provide controls for associating a users funding amount with
| anything. Say I want to sell support: I should be able to
| associate a users sponsorship level with their capability to ask
| questions, i.e. sponsor my project for $X grants you N questions.
| GitHub provides no mechanism for this. Codeberg has an
| opportunity here to one-up GitHub by providing the tools
| maintainers need to monetize their work. Just imagine being able
| to sell closed-source licenses for copyleft software right from
| the interface.
| avodonosov wrote:
| ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED for me, today as well as in the past
| brabel wrote:
| Another option which is based on gitlab:
| https://www.opencode.net/
|
| It's part of https://www.opendesktop.org which is basically an
| open-source, free cloud services provider.
| quaintdev wrote:
| I am using legit(0). Its simple and straightforward.
|
| https://github.com/icyphox/legit
| TobTobXX wrote:
| Here is leigt viewed on legit for those interested.
|
| https://git.icyphox.sh/legit
| agumonkey wrote:
| Now I wonder if there are graph view libs for self hosted git
| servers. Could be a great side project otherwise.
| vrglvrglvrgl wrote:
| [dead]
| Kwpolska wrote:
| What makes it fast, and is GitHub not fast enough?
|
| Why is their UI (which is Forgejo, fork of Gitea) such a blatant
| clone of GitHub's?
| jraph wrote:
| > such a blatant clone of GitHub
|
| It's not a bad thing per se. GitHub has an okay interface, why
| not copy the good parts instead of reinventing the wheel for
| the sake of it?
| dboreham wrote:
| > such a blatant clone of GitHub's?
|
| I'm guessing for the same reason all cars have the steering
| wheel and turn signal switch in roughly the same place.
| Kwpolska wrote:
| BitBucket and GitLab are more distinct and have made
| different decisions in some places, for better or worse.
| Forgejo is just a clone of GitHub with slightly different
| colors.
| silverwind wrote:
| Gitlab's design is actually based on BitBucket which came 6
| years earlier.
| richardwhiuk wrote:
| GitLab's design at one point was just a copy and paste of
| GitHub's entire UI.
|
| Their URL design is heavily based on GitHubs.
|
| e.g. https://cdn0.tnwcdn.com/wp-
| content/blogs.dir/1/files/2014/06... /
| https://cdn0.tnwcdn.com/wp-
| content/blogs.dir/1/files/2014/06...
| akkartik wrote:
| I mirror my repos to a bunch of services, and I've personally
| found `git push` to be much slower on codeforge than most
| places. I suspect they're having some short-lived scaling
| issues (that I am totally sympathetic to)
| oblio wrote:
| I'm guessing the Golang implementation and probably a smaller
| team working on the frontend?
|
| GitHub is perceptibly slower than Codeberg, just open 2 tab
| side by side and try them out.
| amoerie wrote:
| Codeberg being faster might be a side effect of not being
| very popular yet.
| jolheiser wrote:
| We (Gitea) inherited the UI from Gogs, and iirc the UI choice
| was partially because Gogs was a one man show and partially
| because a familiar interface eases transition from GitHub.
|
| We have talked about UI refreshes over the years, but it would
| be a huge undertaking while also keeping up with the rapid
| iteration.
| zemo wrote:
| > Why is their UI (which is Forgejo, fork of Gitea) such a
| blatant clone of GitHub's?
|
| because their project goal is to iterate on the ownership
| model, not to iterate on the web design.
|
| I use a self-hosted forgejo instance now (as of like, a week
| ago, let's see if I stick with it haha). I like GitHub the
| piece of software just fine, but I don't like the idea of my
| code training copilot. I think the design of GitHub is fine and
| people already know it, so I like that. If the reason you would
| want to not use GitHub is the design, gitea or forgejo will
| probably not be to your liking.
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| Our product is faster!...oh but it's also newer, smaller, and
| more limited in features.
| Alifatisk wrote:
| What do they mean by Fast? In terms of website performance?
| xigoi wrote:
| I'm guessing they mean that, but according to ForgePerf, GitHub
| is better in that regard.
|
| https://forgeperf.org/
| ddevault wrote:
| fwiw there's a bug in the system which updates this page and
| it has grown rather stale. (author of this website)
| xigoi wrote:
| Good to know. Do you think Codeberg is actually faster than
| GitHub now?
| ddevault wrote:
| Couldn't say, but I do think Codeberg's performance is
| anecdotally reasonable and I'm fond of their ideals and
| practices.
| ruuda wrote:
| Yes, pages on Codeberg load so much faster than on GitHub, it
| blew me away when I first tried it.
| throwthisawayhn wrote:
| I appreciate what Codeberg is doing for decentralizing code
| hosting and providing software (Forgejo) with useful features
| that can compete with Github, but I must say their Terms of Use
| especially the "Allowed Content" section is one of the worst I've
| seen. Imagine a CoC but governing an entire website and all its
| users...
| icemelt8 wrote:
| The only field where companies want to run on donations and
| communism.
| justeleblanc wrote:
| Running on donations is antithetic to communism.
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| > No tracking. Your data is not for sale.
|
| Of course, Codeberg is not saying GitHub sells your data, but it
| seems to imply someone is selling your data if you don't use
| Codeberg and instead use other services. Is there any backing for
| this? Who sells your data if you use GitHub that won't sell your
| data when you use Codeberg?
| jeppester wrote:
| They are selling everyone's code through copilot
| flanked-evergl wrote:
| If the code is publicly available on Codeberg, won't GitHub
| just go take it from there and then sell it through copilot?
| hk__2 wrote:
| Copilot is trained on publicly available code.
| zemo wrote:
| Are they crawling the internet looking for all the publicly
| available code that exists or are they just training their
| model on the code that people upload directly to their
| servers?
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Publically available doesn't mean you can use it for your
| model. Licenses still exist.
| whatyesaid wrote:
| It's publicly available code that comes with licenses on
| how you can use that code that they ignore, such as share
| alike but they're charging. That's an ethical issue.
|
| In the early days (months after public release not beta),
| it would literally give you code stolen from someone's
| repo, sometimes with credentials (security risk) and
| project specific stuff. That means because you took code
| verbatim to the naked eye you would be held liable for
| license violation.
| xigoi wrote:
| But it doesn't respect the code's license.
| maxloh wrote:
| "Publicly available" is different from "licensed under a
| FOSS license". Anyone other than the original author
| doesn't have the right to distribute, modify or even
| execute the code.
|
| Even if the code is licensed under an open source license,
| in most cases it requires users to attribute the original
| author, while in some cases derivative work must be
| licensed under the same license too.
|
| GitHub Copilot use the code without honoring these
| obligations.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| You grant GitHub a license to display your code, same for
| Codeberg, they're not bound by your license because
| you're granting them specific rights. Secondly can you
| prove damages when a person uses your code but doesn't
| attribute you? If you can't your license isn't very
| useful. This is what we all need to understand.
| c-hendricks wrote:
| > distribute
|
| Does moving code between a company's data centres count
| as distribution?
|
| Heck doesn't merely hosting the files count as
| distribution?
| hk__2 wrote:
| No, but Copilot can be considered a form of distribution.
| [deleted]
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| No tracking is a major point for Codeberg; doesn't matter
| whether data is sold or not in times of FAANG - Google doesn't
| sell your data either but uses it to sell ads placement. Can't
| understand zealots pontificating about F/OSS, then turning to
| github to sell their user's clicks and eyeballs, and also give
| away very detailed sensor data (such as fixes in response to
| issues) for Copilot and future ChatGPT-based coding bots.
| mikojan wrote:
| https://github.com/features/copilot#pricing
| physPop wrote:
| My new breakfast cereal is different, it contains zero rusty
| nails!
| kettunen wrote:
| Love to see alternatives to these big code hosting solutions!
| Personally I'm donating to sourcehut, mainly in "support your
| local" -mentality, and definitely recommend people doing the same
| for your favourite projects . But that being said, for most of my
| coding, I have a simple self-hosted cgit + gitolite setup that
| suits my needs exactly! Unfortunately, cannot get completely rid
| of GitHub due to work and open source necessitites.
| kotatsuyaki wrote:
| I'm trying to migrate my personal repos from GitHub to Codeberg.
| The biggest challenge is to find a replacement for GitHub Actions
| (the free offering is so generous), and my current solution for
| that is to self-host an instance of Woodpecker CI [1].
|
| I'd like to see even more diversity in Git hosting beyond "let's
| all migrate from X to Y", and for that to happen, Forgejo (the
| soft fork of Gitea that Codeberg runs) has already begun to
| implement federation [2], which can make cross-instance
| collaboration easier.
|
| [1]: http://woodpecker-ci.org/ [2]:
| https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/59
| RamblingCTO wrote:
| They (Gitea) introduced actions. It is already included in the
| current releases, but codeberg might just not activate it. It
| works quite good, I actually wrote a gitea action already
| ("gitea-release-drafter").
| kotatsuyaki wrote:
| Glad to see new options. I wonder if Codeberg is going to
| enable actions, given that they've already setup an
| experimental instance of Woodpecker that can be requested [1]
| on a per-user basis.
|
| [1]: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg-CI/request-access
| hakre wrote:
| Nice, perhaps is worth to invest into such kind of
| "fediverse" (using Codeberg with my own hosted action
| runners/boxes), I'd buy into that feature much faster than
| into any other (e.g. using Codeberg for PRs from proprietary
| hosted "Codeberg" instances).
| RamblingCTO wrote:
| There's also work on that ;) the dude doing most of the
| work moved to forgejo and some parts are already
| implemented but I'm not sure what the state is. I would
| also love to see federation, that's what would really be a
| github killer and drive this ecosystem forward imho.
|
| - https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/18240 -
| https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/59
| chrisweekly wrote:
| GitLab CI is pretty good.
| tough wrote:
| This was on HN past week https://cicada.sh/
| mdaniel wrote:
| I'm guessing it's this:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35364146 although it
| didn't seem to get much traction other than the one comment
| that matches what I found while trying to read up on it:
|
| https://github.com/Cicada-
| Software/cicada/blob/main/docs/ci-...
|
| > create a file _anywhere in your repository_ ending in .ci
|
| uh-huh
|
| > Note that you cannot use the pipe operator (|) with the
| shell command, only one command can be executed at a time
|
| uh-huh
|
| > To make sure that your workflow works, try pushing to your
| repository
|
| so, no local runner for this, either. fantastic.
|
| So instead of using Starlark, which a non-trivial number of
| folks already know, there's already editor support for, and
| is obviously designed to be embedded, they decided that what
| the world needs is another DSL. Got it.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| About 6 months ago, Codeberg removed the repository for the
| Wikiless project, and IIRC did not offer any explanation to the
| developer for about 2 weeks.
|
| The reason was a Wikimedia Foundation request.
|
| Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33101301
| Rexogamer wrote:
| I would be very surprised if this was the case - the WMF
| doesn't prohibit alternative front ends in any way, and it
| doesn't seem to do anything they'd be upset about (unless it
| allowed people to evade edit blocks, but that seems incredibly
| doubtful); if anything, surely they'd welcome a project focused
| on protecting the privacy of its users?
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| I added the reference link:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33101301
| noirscape wrote:
| Here's a bit more as to why:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35480811
|
| The project also doesn't actually make clear if it's actually
| private and not just MITMing it's own users to track them -
| as has been pointed out on several[0][1] privacy focused
| browser extensions that haphazardly included Wikiless.
|
| [0]: https://framagit.org/tom79/nitterizeme/-/issues/61#note_
| 1122...
|
| [1]: https://github.com/SimonBrazell/privacy-
| redirect/issues/232#...
| rizky05 wrote:
| [dead]
| goodpoint wrote:
| Good.
| ementally wrote:
| Repo is still private and the dev removed all of his updates.
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20221125051241/https://orenom.fi...
|
| The repo: https://codeberg.org/orenom/wikiless
| noirscape wrote:
| There's more to this - Wikiless was an unmodified passthrough
| proxy that iirc just unloaded a bunch of regular mediawiki JS
| because the author thought it constituted a privacy
| violation/they were afraid that for some reason the WMF was
| tracking them for malicious purposes[0].
|
| On its own, not harmful. That being said, it ran afoul of the
| WMFs trademarks and was actively confusing people with regular
| Mediawiki, which is likely what prompted the takedown. You can
| read the ins and outs on Wikipedias own page about mirrors and
| forks, there's an explanation listed there[1].
|
| Codeberg likely complied because if you're weighting a vaguely
| conspiratorial-minded (the developer of Wikiless is a "feds in
| the walls" type if it wasn't obvious from the previous
| paragraph) proxy tool against possibly being shut down since
| you decided to stand up for an easy trademark violation, the
| choice is easy.
|
| [0]: I'd like to note that as far as I can tell, no such
| tooling exists on Wikipedia, nor does the WMF employ the usual
| culprit (ad networks) of that kind of nonsense.
|
| [1]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/VW...
| mort96 wrote:
| That doesn't really change anything? Taking down a repository
| with no explanation is unacceptable regardless of context.
| throwawaaarrgh wrote:
| It sounds like there was an explanation?
| noirscape wrote:
| It does change things. Codeberg responded to orenom's
| request for explanation on the same day (see the archive
| link in the first source about people mentioning it was
| taken down) and further detailed it in the subsequent days.
| That's decent time to respond with an explanation if you
| don't have a formalized process to deal with this stuff
| (which given Codeberg is pretty small, seems likely).
|
| Very few providers will shoulder the risk of being dragged
| to court to stand in front of you when legal is involved.
| Most don't have the funding to go the legal route to begin
| with, so they just comply. "We'll go to court for you"
| isn't a selling point of Codeberg, which makes it silly to
| expect it.
| mort96 wrote:
| "Wikiless was an unmodified passthrough proxy, it ran
| afoul of trademarks and it was confusing people" doesn't
| change anything.
|
| "Codeberg responded to orenom's request for explanation
| on the same day" does change things. You didn't include
| this in your previous comment from what I can see. Thanks
| for pointing it out.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-07 23:01 UTC)