Evaluating new software forges • Hacker News Board

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#101

Post by plagiarist » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 6:22 PM UTC

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #91

meibo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and Source Hut Not a very serious option if you're looking for anyone from the 21st century to contribute to your project. No, the email workflow doesn't get better by just screaming "it's not that bad!" over and over again. I'm looking forward to the federation work that is being done for forgejo, that will be big if it works out as it seems like it will.

> > and Source Hut > Not a very serious option if you're looking for anyone from the 21st century to contribute to your project. No, the email workflow doesn't get better by just screaming "it's not that bad!" over and over again. Perhaps the maintainers of the respective project consider filtering out contributions from "hipster programmers" actually desirable for the project. :-)

Are the hipsters the ones using email or refusing to use email? I could see a dude rolling up on a penny farthing to explain why email is the one true workflow. But he'll be embarrassed when a more powerful hipster shows up using a telegraph to send diffs by wire.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#102

Post by jauntywundrkind » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 6:40 PM UTC

This is one of the first times I've seen someone who has casual access to Kubernetes.

They spent a lot of the post saying how they didn't really want to run stuff,

> 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.

But then their friend convinced them to "kubectl apply" a couple of manifests & they got a bunch of stuff spin up quickly, on what should be a reliable-ish maintained-by-other-people cluster. This is the first time I've seen a win like this & it feels like such a sweet spot!

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#103

Post by bionhoward » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 6:50 PM UTC

sebastianconcpt wrote: post #52

Is Microsoft secretly learning from the secrets in private GitHub repositories?

No, but Microsoft has an AI term of service which forbids use of Microsoft AI for AI development.

“”” AI Services q. AI Services. "AI services" are services that are labeled or described by Microsoft as including, using, powered by, or being an Artificial Intelligence ("AI") system.

iii. Limits on use of data from the AI Services. You may not use the AI services, or data from the AI services, to create, train, or improve (directly or indirectly) any other AI service.

“””

If you ask GitHub Copilot Chat about the issue, it/they suggest seeking professional legal advice. To use GitHub Copilot. An AI trained on our AI code from GitHub. To write AI code. For paying customers.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DIj6-mgyxVRBJNEeVZMV8t8ec2L...

Satya Nadella is King Midas. I emailed him and their legal team about it many times and he could have personally gone into the codebase and deleted this service term by now. I reported them to the State of Washington Attorney General (you can, too), and to the Federal Trade Commission Antitrust Team (you can, too), and to the Department of Justice Antitrust Enforcement Division (you can, too). Unclear how to report this to the EU Parliament AI Act folks, but maybe they posted new info since I last checked.

It’s a single line of text, certainly unfair and unreasonable and almost surely illegal in pretty much every relevant jurisdiction, so there’s certainly no an argument to be made that the fix is too technically challenging, even in light of Microsoft’s historical ineptitude.

We could check to see if Washington State has laws against contractual restraint of trade like California does. (Hint, Hint.)

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#104

Post by matheusmoreira » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 6:51 PM UTC

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…

GitHub Sponsors is pretty great. Seems like a perfectly ethical way for open source developers to earn money. Doesn't depend on copyright, artificial scarcity, advertising. I really like it.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#105

Post by BHSPitMonkey » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 6:54 PM UTC

RealStickman_ wrote: post #27

k__ wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also https://protocol.land and https://gitopia.com .

The layout of radicle.land is unfortunately pretty broken on mobile.

What is radicle.land? Both radicle.xyz and app.radicle.xyz seem fine for me on Firefox mobile. Did something change in the last few hours?

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#106

Post by lolinder » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 6:55 PM UTC

isilofi wrote: post #12

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…

> Dependabot, and code scanning that you won't find anywhere else. Gitlab has equivalents you can enable as CI pipelines.

So do other forges: I have Renovate [0] set up on my self-hosted Forgejo and it's worked great so far.

[0] https://github.com/renovatebot/renovate

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#107

Post by mwcampbell » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 7:24 PM UTC

bob1029 wrote: post #90

mwcampbell wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Thank you for the link. I've been trying to find any discussion whatsoever. This commentary inspired me to submit a support issue. I intend to start some drama with GH over this. ReactJS will win if we do nothing.

Here's another, older thread, including some inside perspective: https://toot.cafe/@slightlyoff/111390409414137820

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#108

Post by Kwpolska » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 7:25 PM UTC

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #92

paradox460 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, the founder has an unfortunate history of just up and abandoning his projects when they stop being fun for him. I used his media host/imgur alternative in the past, and it spontaneously just disappeared one day. I'd rather that not happen to my source code

> I used his media host/imgur alternative in the past, and it spontaneously just disappeared one day. I'd rather that not happen to my source code Git is decentralized.

Git is decentralized. Ticketing systems and mailing lists as found on SourceHut and many other forges aren’t.

And if SourceHut disappears, what would you do with the repository? You’d upload it to a new forge, but how would you tell users where to find it, how would the users know this is the original source and not a hostile fork? It’s better to pick a stable, trustworthy. and 21st-century place like GitHub or GitLab instead of SourceHut.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#109

Post by tuukkah » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 7:30 PM UTC

ahepp wrote: post #97

tuukkah wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to run CI in a container specified by the repo Would you happen to have an example YAML at hand?

Here's one: https://github.com/ahepp/resume/blob/d7778b1339271cbd7812634... It uses GitHub's devcontainer plugin. There's a devcontainer config at .devcontainer/devcontainer.json, which says to use the image specified by .ci/Dockerfile. So when I'm developing on any Linux system, I can run $ docker build .ci/Dockerfile -t my-container $ docker run --rm -it -v $(pwd):/project -w /project my-container And have a shell…

Thank you for sharing! This shows nicely how you can keep the GitHub YAML at minimum by referring to an action (in this case devcontainers/ci) which configures itself based on the content of the repo.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#110

Post by flohofwoe » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 7:30 PM UTC

The author is too quick to dismiss Gitlab IMHO. I use Gitlab on the job, and Github for my hobby stuff, and Gitlab feels in many ways like a Github for professional use. The Gitlab CI system alone is a difference like night and day compared to GH Actions.