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

FFmpeg moves to Forgejo

code.ffmpeg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 374 posts

Re: FFmpeg moves to Forgejo

#81

Post by necovek »

OptionX wrote: post #69

[flagged]

Are you not familiar with SourceForge? Did you know what a (non-software) "forge" is?

The term actually predates Git (SourceForge started with CVS and SVN IIRC).

I am not saying documentation should not be better — it should — but I am surprised someone in software development would not know of the term. And knowing how good free software projects are at documentation, not turn to searches first (or is it just software projects? I've recently tried to find out what VMWare product I can run virtual machines on Windows with, and it took me a bit too).

Edit: the homepage at https://forgejo.org/ actually has phrases like "self-host your projects and get everyone involved in delivering quality software on the same page" or "Self-hosted alternative to GitHub"

Re: FFmpeg moves to Forgejo

#83

Post by Duralias »

mpalmer wrote: post #60

With the calm, respectful understanding that everything is subjective and there's no accounting for taste - and in my personal capacity - I do not understand how cutesy anime characters have been deemed sufficiently tasteful/professional/anodyne enough to be displayed to literally every single person who visits my site. With apologies to fans of the art style, it is a negative signal to me. I do not prefer to use Clo…

It has simply been normalized and for a lot of smaller scale sites, that this was first made for, being a little less professional isn't a problem.

But for situations where a company simply won't use Anubis because of its branding then they do sell a unbranded version.

https://anubis.techaro.lol/docs/admin/botstopper

Re: FFmpeg moves to Forgejo

#84

Post by frollogaston »

mrcsharp wrote: post #31
mmaunder wrote: post #30

Why not GitHub?

Does it make a difference? More alternatives to Github is a good thing and alternatives mean nothing if no one is using them.

It's impressive how much GitHub dominates with so little lock-in. It's so easy to add a new git remote. Yeah GitHub has its own features too, but for a long time free private repo wasn't one of them.

Re: FFmpeg moves to Forgejo

#85

Post by tylerritchie »

OptionX wrote: post #69

[flagged]

this is one where "software forge" is industry specific jargon (similar to "isostaticrebound" in earthquake science and "evapotranspiration" in biology) which the intended audience would tend to know the definition of. that said, it's a fair complaint for the quality of their marketing material (if not their technical documentation).

as an aside, i checked and it takes four taps (with an thumb highlight thown in ) to define it from my phone.

Re: FFmpeg moves to Forgejo

#86

Post by overfeed »

homebrewer wrote: post #25
bhaney wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's hard to take them seriously when they've been saying very nasty things about the project their whole foundation is built upon I'm not sure why that would make them hard to take seriously unless the things they're saying are false. Is that what you're claiming? > If you look at forgejo commits, more than half of them are merges of library updates made by the renovate bot, which artificially inflates the level o…

None of the really heavy hitters from the "core team" have left. As long as 100% FOSS Gitea pulls ahead in functionality, and can be downgraded relatively easily with an hour of work, I personally see no reason to move anywhere. You can part in different ways, the vibes you give off certainly matter, even when you're 100% technically correct. And I suggested comparing releases, not commits; Gitea is ahead here both i…

> And I suggested comparing releases, not commits...

Who's asking for all those new features? Enterprise users? I love the old Gitea because it was light enough to run on a Raspberry Pi Zero. I've been delaying trying Forgejo due to concerns about bloat, but you've just sold it to me. All I need for it is to mirror Git repositories I care about every couple of days. Like gp, I consider Gogs/Gitea to have been feature-complete years ago

Re: FFmpeg moves to Forgejo

#87

Post by xena »

mpalmer wrote: post #75
c0balt wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I would not use Anubis unless I could disable the imagery, and every time I see it on another site, I think: "hm. weird. whose branding is this?" They do offer an unbranded version, botstopper. It is part of their commercial offering [0] and intended for "professional" environments [0]: https://anubis.techaro.lol/docs/admin/botstopper

Can't fault the logic. Will never use it if that's part of what they've chosen to paywall.

Once the project is sustainable (where I define sustainable as monthly recurring revenue--not one time donations--to be at $5000 USD per month as that is the point where my bank account stays flatlined not accounting for tax), an option to remove it will be added to the version you don't have to pay for.

Otherwise, it's MIT licensed software. You can remove it all you want, but I will use that as a signal to focus my time and energy as I see fit.

Re: FFmpeg moves to Forgejo

#88

Post by tonyhart7 »

necovek wrote: post #81
OptionX wrote: post #69

[flagged]

Are you not familiar with SourceForge? Did you know what a (non-software) "forge" is? The term actually predates Git (SourceForge started with CVS and SVN IIRC). I am not saying documentation should not be better — it should — but I am surprised someone in software development would not know of the term. And knowing how good free software projects are at documentation, not turn to searches first (or is it just softwa…

[flagged]

Re: FFmpeg moves to Forgejo

#90

Post by eddd-ddde »

mpalmer wrote: post #60

With the calm, respectful understanding that everything is subjective and there's no accounting for taste - and in my personal capacity - I do not understand how cutesy anime characters have been deemed sufficiently tasteful/professional/anodyne enough to be displayed to literally every single person who visits my site. With apologies to fans of the art style, it is a negative signal to me. I do not prefer to use Clo…

How is it different from the classic corporate caricature of a person with unnatural body proportions?

It's just art style.

Post reply on HN