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

71–80 of 138 posts

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#71

Post by jamesu »

dartos wrote: post #48

Onedev is pretty good. I run it locally and it’s been grwat

Onedev has pretty good features built-in. They even seem to have a paid option now too which adds some additional features, though I wonder what the division between paid and unpaid features will look like as the project ages. To be fair though, there only seems to be one person consistently working on it.

Also there is just something about its sidebar-centric UI I just don't like. It's not as bad as gitlab but still, it bugs me every time I use it.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#72

Post by morelisp »

Klonoar wrote: post #63
tailspin2019 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They’re not saying that the author can’t post whatever they want on their blog. They’re saying that we, as a community, should not elevate unsubstantiated writing that comes across as “I don’t truly understand these things or have deep experience, but this is what everyone else says on every other blog post or comment, and I’m parroting it”. I would add on to it that I feel there’s sometimes a real thing in these dis…

I have (with a team) built a couple on-prem Kubernetes clusters that handle billions of requests per day, as well as written Kubernetes controllers and operators.

Kubernetes is a nightmare, and I'm glad that some people are not afraid to point out the state of the emperor's outfit.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#73

Post by morelisp »

LoganDark wrote: post #35
emersion wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ju…

Pseudonyms are fine, hapaxnyms are what's cautioned against. Given that you use "Logan Dark" in several places surely you recognize why this is useful?

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#74

Post by mwcampbell »

bob1029 wrote: post #60

> I hope they haven’t started down the slow and painful process of enshittification by following vague, ill-defined industry trends! Has anyone else found themselves wondering if GitHub switched to a different web framework? I feel like they moved further down the client-side rendering rabbit hole recently. Their UI feels increasingly janky to me. Several times a day I get a view of completely un-styled HTML that eve…

Yeah, it's React. It's been a pretty frequent topic of discussion in some corners of the fediverse lately, e.g. https://mastodon.social/@bendelarre/111585575314778379

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#75

Post by ForkMeOnTinder »

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…

I'm curious what you thought was missing from Codeberg.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#76

Post by idlephysicist »

natdempk wrote: post #56
saurik wrote: post #2

I 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 :(.

https://pierre.co/ is another interesting one, focused on a product-development workflow.

What is a Product Engineer? Is it just another name for an engineer?

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#77

Post by dabedee »

lucideer wrote: post #61

This post bothered me. Perhaps I'm being too nitpicky, and there's nothing inherently wrong with their final choices, but their criticisms of the other systems alongside their reasons for choosing what they did are contradictory; overall the article was internally inconsistent. Gitlab was dismissed for the SaaS being only open-core, despite opting for self-hosting in the end. Codeberg was dismissed for having limited…

Yes, they dismissed Gitlab in part because of the self-hosted argument: "I know I can download GitLab and set it up on my own server. However, I’m a software developer, not a sysadmin. I want to spend my time developing software, not putting out fires and paying AWS bills for the rest of time."

Yet they ended up choosing a self-hosted option, Gitea, because it was recommended by an acquaintance and they set up a couple lightsail servers on AWS to run it.

It's totally fine for the author to share their preferences; they're just exhibiting the internal inconsistencies and irrational behavior we're probably all guilty of at one point or another.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#78

Post by Tadpole9181 »

philipov wrote: post #69
lucideer wrote: post #61

This post bothered me. Perhaps I'm being too nitpicky, and there's nothing inherently wrong with their final choices, but their criticisms of the other systems alongside their reasons for choosing what they did are contradictory; overall the article was internally inconsistent. Gitlab was dismissed for the SaaS being only open-core, despite opting for self-hosting in the end. Codeberg was dismissed for having limited…

Open-core was mentioned, but was not a dealbreaker. Gitlab was dismissed for just following along with what GitHub does and being "AI-powered"

No, the parent is right. The very first two reasons given were being open-field and that they "didn't wasn't to be a sysadmin".

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#80

Post by natdempk »

idlephysicist wrote: post #76
natdempk wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://pierre.co/ is another interesting one, focused on a product-development workflow.

What is a Product Engineer? Is it just another name for an engineer?

Yeah, I don't think there is any meaningful distinction there. I think Pierre is just framing things in terms of solving for teams that work with product + design + engineering to ship something to users that involves all of those parties, whereas GitHub has primarily catered to engineering.

Today in software companies there is basically a gap where each discipline kinda prefers to work in it's own software silo (eg. Asana / Figma / GitHub), but that doesn't really make a lot of sense from a fundamental standpoint where all of those aspects of a team want to work very closely together. You end up kinda syncing a lot of info/state across the silos, or via meetingss/slack etc, so I think Pierre is trying to bring all that into one tool with some opinionated workflow. Makes a lot of sense from my perspective, curious how it ends up working out.

Post reply on HN