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

31–40 of 81 posts

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#31

Post by adrianmsmith »

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[…

This would be more helpful and lead to a more interesting discussion if you could tell us what you didn't like about SourceHut's UI.

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#32

Post by Tmpod »

gspr wrote: post #17
octoberfranklin wrote: post #2

Quoted post unavailable.

> Why are so many of your great contributors so hostile to the only part of the Internet that is still truly decentralized? > Why do they hate store-and-forward, latency-tolerant networks? I do like email-based development. And I pay for Sourcehut. But I also understand why others don't like email-based interfaces. And I too sometimes get annoyed by Debian's BTS taking minutes to act on (email-based) changes to bug r…

> but oh man sometimes an instantaneous interface is important.

That can indeed be a flow breaker, however, in my experience, it's not necessarily an email issue, but Debian's in this case, since sending stuff to lists.sr.ht is pretty snappy (like a couple of seconds after the client sends it). It isn't as fast and instantaneous as your typical web UI yet it's not a flow breaker either, imo, though YMMV.

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#33

Post by goodpoint »

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[…

I love minimalistic javascript-free UIs and that sourcehut is fast (and under AGPL).

Yet I find the layout in Sourcehut really confusing and not self-explanatory.

Not having a bugtracker UI and having to jump around different FQDNs related to the same project is a usability killer for me.

I don't expect forges to copy github. E.g. trac is very different but still has a rational and friendly layout.

EDIT: I also like that codeberg.org is non-profit and community-driven. If the sourcehut UI was to become usable I wish codeberg would run an instance of sourcehut.

Another aspect I would love to see is federation.

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#34

Post by Tmpod »

goodpoint wrote: post #33
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[…

I love minimalistic javascript-free UIs and that sourcehut is fast (and under AGPL). Yet I find the layout in Sourcehut really confusing and not self-explanatory. Not having a bugtracker UI and having to jump around different FQDNs related to the same project is a usability killer for me. I don't expect forges to copy github. E.g. trac is very different but still has a rational and friendly layout. EDIT: I also like…

Yeah, the disconnect between sourcehut components isn't great, but AFAIK they are working on hub.sr.ht or smth like that, and also better integration between all of those services, precisely to fix that issue.

I'm eager to see that implemented, because it will be a good step forward.

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#35

Post by GoblinSlayer »

_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.

The idea is that centralized host doesn't imply centralized development model. You already have five centralized hosts for that matter.

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#36

Post by [deleted] »

lpcvoid wrote: post #29
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.

[deleted]

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#37

Post by HexDecOctBin »

Have people used SCM Manager [1]? I recently found it on the Mercurial self-hosting page [2], and while it seems pretty good based on using it for a few weeks (at least for a single person use-case), the fact that I never hear of it (as much as Gogs or Gitea) makes me think that it may have some non-obvious issues with it.

[1]: https://scm-manager.org/ [2]: https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/MercurialHosting

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#38

Post by forgotpwd16 »

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…

>they are searching for a free service

Free as in beer or as in freedom? In podcast they say that GL isn't entirely open source and they don't like that they're using some proprietary features of it.

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#39

Post by forgotpwd16 »

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[…

>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 register link is actually: https://meta.sr.ht/register. You pointed to meta homepage. When you proceed to enter your info (username/password) you'll see the layouts are consistent.

Re: Considering Sourcehut

#40

Post by olalonde »

forgotpwd16 wrote: post #39
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[…

>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 register link is actually: https://meta.sr.ht/register . You pointed to meta homepage. When you proceed to enter your info (username/password) you'll see the layouts are consistent.

The "Register" link in the top navigation links to https://meta.sr.ht/, while the "Register" link inside the login page links to https://meta.sr.ht/register (another inconsistency I guess).

Even if we compare, https://meta.sr.ht/register/step2 and https://meta.sr.ht/login, the widths of the layouts are different (730px vs 920px).

Post reply on HN