Evaluating new software forges
notgull.net
Evaluating new software forges
1–10 of 138 posts
Re: Evaluating new software forges
#2I was hoping for an evaluation of Radicle--the only forge that seemed to be doing something exciting and "new", and one I haven't had the time to really analyze yet--but... no such luck :(.
Re: Evaluating new software forges
#3Would’ve been curious for the authors take on OneDev as well.
Re: Evaluating new software forges
#4Coincidentally, I've been mulling the same idea for a week now. A self-hostable source forge + registry to serve artifacts would be amazing.
I think the only thing you'd lose is the 'social' aspects of GitHub, but I believe that can be made up with a combination of rss feeds (?), ActivityPub etc.
Re: Evaluating new software forges
#5Having tried GitHub, GitLab, Source Hut, Codeberg, and BitBucket (RIP), I think the only serious options are GitHub, GitLab self hosted, and Source Hut.
GitHub owned by MSFT aside, and also putting their AI push _also_ aside, GitHub has things like Sponsors, Dependabot, and code scanning that you won't find anywhere else. They sure are luring you into ecosystems that require a huge escape velocity, but GitHub serves as less-friction entry point to open source software.
GitLab self hosting is also nice and flexible, but it has a more "enterprise open source" feeling to it. Debian and Drupal can take advantage of it, but I don't see myself hosting mini projects like my mini CSS library that is also used by three other strangers.
Source Hut is really nice too. Admittedly I don't like email based workflows, so I haven't really thought about moving anything there. But Source Hut has "unlisted" repos, which I thought was really clever and missing from other forges.
Re: Evaluating new software forges
#6I was hoping for an evaluation of Radicle--the only forge that seemed to be doing something exciting and "new", and one I haven't had the time to really analyze yet--but... no such luck :(.
Wow that looks crazy!
Link: https://radicle.xyz
But honestly, I also wouldn't write about this without a lot of usage experience. For sure it's different from github/-lab etc. exciting and new, as you say.
Re: Evaluating new software forges
#7Quick note that Gitea has its own CI (roughly Github Actions compatible) so you don't need to use Drone.
Re: Evaluating new software forges
#8Is not hard for me to see a case being built around the idea of finding value in having code to stay excluded from the surface exposed to AI so it becomes impossible for it to predate it.
It's a type of "security" that doesn't find an answer in "better AIs" or "AIs with improved alignment". The value comes out of being safe from the risk that can come out of the humans in control of these AIs.
I comes out of staying away and making impossible for any and all AIs to touch it.
Like the difference between food from a chef and hyperindustrialized food.
What if you want chef food only?
In the same way, exclusively human software creations.
Re: Evaluating new software forges
#9I think it's time we collectively mature past the point where taking unsubstantiated pot-shots at tools we don't "love" is seen as a value add to commentary.
In this case calling k8s a "nightmare" is a strong red flag akin to the mantra of "java is slow". It lacks the nuance of hands on XP and reeks of rules of thumb miss applied to the point of catchphrases.
Re: Evaluating new software forges
#10If your goal is to put some code out there just to share it with others, any of those will work. There's also Bitbucket, Sourceforge, and self-hosted Fossil. The blog author seems to be looking for more of an "enterprise" open source option. You could even use Gitolite or GitWeb if you're willing to self-host.