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

Evaluating new software forges

notgull.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 138 posts

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#31

Post by sebastianconcpt »

Jgrubb wrote: post #16
sebastianconcpt wrote: post #8

Is 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…

I like this analogy but I guess I see it more like man inventing the knife, so he doesn't have to rip the animal to shreds with his bare hands anymore.

Except the knives do not have the capacity to give parts of the protein to other knives users surreptitiously and it's in AI's very nature to absolutely do that.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#33

Post by emersion »

LoganDark wrote: post #19

I also checked out SourceHut, but they're unfortunately not compatible with my email provider, and after some discussion with Drew (the founder) it started to sound like I'm not welcome unless I bring a real legal name and human identity. I understand how that type of collaboration can be valued and desired, but it excludes me, so I didn't pursue SourceHut any further. Something to think about if you ever consider it…

SourceHut staff here. We don't have any requirement for "real legal" names or anything -- and in fact I find these requirements very harmful in general (glad we finally got rid of them in the kernel). I know multiple people collaborating on SourceHut with a pseudonym and this causes no issue at all. SourceHut does assume a stable email address but that's about it.

That's my own take -- for Drew's see https://drewdevault.com/2023/10/31/On-real-names.html

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#35

Post by LoganDark »

emersion wrote: post #33
LoganDark wrote: post #19

I also checked out SourceHut, but they're unfortunately not compatible with my email provider, and after some discussion with Drew (the founder) it started to sound like I'm not welcome unless I bring a real legal name and human identity. I understand how that type of collaboration can be valued and desired, but it excludes me, so I didn't pursue SourceHut any further. Something to think about if you ever consider it…

SourceHut staff here. We don't have any requirement for "real legal" names or anything -- and in fact I find these requirements very harmful in general (glad we finally got rid of them in the kernel). I know multiple people collaborating on SourceHut with a pseudonym and this causes no issue at all. SourceHut does assume a stable email address but that's about it. That's my own take -- for Drew's see https://drewdeva…

It's not a requirement, but I heavily got the vibe that pseudonyms are not welcome. To quote Drew, "You should be using your real email address with the mailing lists, so that people can reach you and treat you as a human being, not as a proxy of one."

I'm just not comfortable putting myself out there like that. I get it's not technically against the rules to do it differently, but it's just... frowned upon.

Other justifications included that my peers would be sharing their real names and personal email addresses, so I'm being non-courteous by not doing the same... I dunno. It wasn't a particularly productive email chain, but it told me all I needed to know.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#37

Post by tailspin2019 »

steezeburger wrote: post #20
btreecat wrote: post #9

I 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.

Sad to see this down voted. I agree. They also sound insufferable. Maybe it's just their writing style, trying to be inflammatory for engagement, but they are not someone I would want to work with.

You and the parent seem to dislike the author sharing their opinions on things on their own blog. And yet you're happy to share your own dismissive opinions on the author here.

FWIW I find the author's obviously subjective opinions on their tools much more valuable than your obviously subjective opinions of this author.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#39

Post by mst »

Ayesh wrote: post #5

Having 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…

Having been using gitea at work for a while as an "internal mini-github" (along with a github organisation for stuff that isn't purely internal or would otherwise benefit for that) I have to say it ... hasn't annoyed me noticeably.

So I think I'd put gitea* on that list as well.

(I don't think I disagree with your opinions about the ones you -have- listed)

* and I mean that to include forgejo, I think, though I haven't tried it so YMMV

Post reply on HN