Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Considering Sourcehut

postmarketos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 81 posts

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#21

Post by Winsaucerer »

Arnavion wrote: post #18
Winsaucerer wrote: post #14

I use sourcehut for a few projects, and I love the build system. I don't have extensive experience with build systems, but I've explored a handful. What I love about sourcehut's build system is that for the most part it's just straight up scripts/commands. If I can do it in Linux, then I should be able to get it going without difficulty via sourcehut builds. As a result, there's also not much about it to learn. Most…

>What I love about sourcehut's build system is that for the most part it's just straight up scripts/commands. If I can do it in Linux, then I should be able to get it going without difficulty via sourcehut builds. FWIW, it's possible to do it for GitHub etc as well. These CI providers try to get you to use their bespoke "Actions", ie custom DSLs that only work with the one CI provider, but nothing prevents you from i…

That's good to know. Github actions is one of the (many) systems I haven't played with yet.

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#22

Post by vnorilo »

mariusor wrote: post #15
Winsaucerer wrote: post #14

I use sourcehut for a few projects, and I love the build system. I don't have extensive experience with build systems, but I've explored a handful. What I love about sourcehut's build system is that for the most part it's just straight up scripts/commands. If I can do it in Linux, then I should be able to get it going without difficulty via sourcehut builds. As a result, there's also not much about it to learn. Most…

> The git-by-email setup is more inconvenient. Due to the distributed nature of git, that's not actually required. Any sourcehut project can merge branches that exist in different places on the Internet. The feedback and reviewing process might be more cumbersome, but accepting code contributions is not impeded in any way.

Indeed. A pull request is indeed a ... request to pull changes! One fetch/apply later you can use your local merge tools to evaluate.

I guess the various hubs, labs and buckets make it slightly harder to run malicious code on your own box, but the difference might be smaller than one would think.

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#23

Post by _ikke_ »

vnorilo wrote: post #22
mariusor wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The git-by-email setup is more inconvenient. Due to the distributed nature of git, that's not actually required. Any sourcehut project can merge branches that exist in different places on the Internet. The feedback and reviewing process might be more cumbersome, but accepting code contributions is not impeded in any way.

Indeed. A pull request is indeed a ... request to pull changes! One fetch/apply later you can use your local merge tools to evaluate. I guess the various hubs, labs and buckets make it slightly harder to run malicious code on your own box, but the difference might be smaller than one would think.

The issue is most users do not have the infrastructure to let others pull directly from their repositories, hence centralized hosts became popular.

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#24

Post by Wronnay »

As I read it, they are searching for a free service.

AFAIK Sourcehut is only free currently because it is in alpha stage. So it will cost at least $20/year in the future. (Which is still way cheaper than GitLabs Premium plan, but still: it isn't "free")

I don't think people think enough about that fact. Sourcehut is not a "free" alternative if you plan long term.

I think something like codeberg.org would be a real "free" alternative. Because Codeberg - as a non-profit - doesn't plan to sell anything in the future.

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#25

Post by olalonde »

I just can't get past how bad SourceHut's UI is. They really need to hire someone that knows some basic UI principles.

Edit: As a commenter suggested, I will elaborate a little:

I'm a big fan of minimalist and lightweight UIs, that's not my issue with SourceHut's design. My issue is the disregard for several established UI principles (balance, proportion, repetition, etc.). Some examples:

- The login[0] and register[1] pages have completely inconsistent layouts (left aligned vs centered aligned, one has a header and the other not, etc.).

- The margin between the top navigation and page content is inconsistent from page to page.

- Inconsistent styling of links. Some links have an underline that disappears on mouseover, while for some other links, it's the opposite[2].

- Inconsistent use of margin/padding all over the place.

Etc.

[0] https://meta.sr.ht/login

[1] https://meta.sr.ht/

[2] https://sr.ht/~martijnbraam/photoflow/ see "View project feed" vs "public-inbox" links at the top.

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#26

Post by ddevault »

Wronnay wrote: post #24

As I read it, they are searching for a free service. AFAIK Sourcehut is only free currently because it is in alpha stage. So it will cost at least $20/year in the future. (Which is still way cheaper than GitLabs Premium plan, but still: it isn't "free") I don't think people think enough about that fact. Sourcehut is not a "free" alternative if you plan long term. I think something like codeberg.org would be a real "f…

This comes with some caveats:

- It's always affordable; if you cannot pay for any reason then you'll be given free service.

- Payment is not required to contribute to projects, just to host them.

- Paying for SourceHut makes more sense than paying for other platforms. The money stays in FOSS and keeps the platform accountable to its users, not its investors. Choosing a free service means that you're subject to someone else's demands -- that is, whoever is actually footing your bill.

pmOS is already aware of this, in fact they're already paying to use the CI service. Still: it's important for new users to understand this. Everyone who signs up is sent a welcome email which lays out these details.

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#27

Post by DrBazza »

olalonde wrote: post #25

I just can't get past how bad SourceHut's UI is. They really need to hire someone that knows some basic UI principles. Edit: As a commenter suggested, I will elaborate a little: I'm a big fan of minimalist and lightweight UIs, that's not my issue with SourceHut's design. My issue is the disregard for several established UI principles (balance, proportion, repetition, etc.). Some examples: - The login[0] and register[…

It's not bad at all, unfamiliar perhaps, because all the others have copied github.

It's like that so that page sizes are as a small as possible, to cater for all users on all platforms in all locations. Not everyone is American or European with a gigabit connection. No pointless theming, no pointless javascript, no trackers and so on.

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#28

Post by mikro2nd »

olalonde wrote: post #25

I just can't get past how bad SourceHut's UI is. They really need to hire someone that knows some basic UI principles. Edit: As a commenter suggested, I will elaborate a little: I'm a big fan of minimalist and lightweight UIs, that's not my issue with SourceHut's design. My issue is the disregard for several established UI principles (balance, proportion, repetition, etc.). Some examples: - The login[0] and register[…

Personally I really, really like Sourcehut's UI/UX -- far easier to navigate for a casual user than those other Big Name alternatives. As well, I like the minimalism of the UI.

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#29

Post by lpcvoid »

olalonde wrote: post #25

I just can't get past how bad SourceHut's UI is. They really need to hire someone that knows some basic UI principles. Edit: As a commenter suggested, I will elaborate a little: I'm a big fan of minimalist and lightweight UIs, that's not my issue with SourceHut's design. My issue is the disregard for several established UI principles (balance, proportion, repetition, etc.). Some examples: - The login[0] and register[…

Do you miss the millions of bytes of bloated Javascript mess that "modern" websites are littered with? SourceHut's UI is absolutely amazing.

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#30

Post by mariusor »

_ikke_ wrote: post #23
vnorilo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. A pull request is indeed a ... request to pull changes! One fetch/apply later you can use your local merge tools to evaluate. I guess the various hubs, labs and buckets make it slightly harder to run malicious code on your own box, but the difference might be smaller than one would think.

The issue is most users do not have the infrastructure to let others pull directly from their repositories, hence centralized hosts became popular.

I think that at least for this specific use case the would be PostmarketOS contributors have access to Gitlab.

Of course I can't speak for the devs of PostmarketOS, but on my own projects hosted on Sourcehut, that's how I ask for alternative contributions coming from people uncomfortable with sending patches using email.

Post reply on HN