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

Codeberg Reaches 300k Projects

codeberg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: Codeberg Reaches 300k Projects

#81

Post by juliangmp »

max_ wrote: post #30
blitzo wrote: post #2

I always wonder what GitHub has that Codeberg doesn't. It's a shame this isn't as popular. It seems like developers, of all people, are willingly letting their code be AI piggybacked.

Codeberg suffers from the same problem as sourcehut. They are so fanatical that many groups are unable to use them. Sourcehut for example is hostile towards cryptocurrency related projects. Coderberg is hostile towards private repos.

> They are so fanatical that many groups are unable to use them.

> Coderberg is hostile towards private repos.

Disclaimer: I'm a member of Codeberg e.V., though not part of the presidium or any official representative position.

We're a non-profit (charitable) with the explicit goal of being host to free and open source projects. We run on donations, donations that are made with that specific goal. Why should we provide storage and git hosting for proprietary projects? That is not and has not been the goal of the entire organization. Yeah, I guess that makes us unusable to many groups, technically. But Codeberg was founded for that specific purpose, after all we're a nonprofit, not a business.

If you want to host proprietary projects, Codeberg isn't the place for it and it doesn't want to be.

Also, no you won't be immediately banned if you make 3 private repositories. I myself have a few private repos, mostly projects that never got anywhere close to finished but also personal notes or my nginx server config.

https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/#before-i-star...

Re: Codeberg Reaches 300k Projects

#82

Post by rglullis »

archargelod wrote: post #80
rglullis wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, for my private projects I already run my own Gitea and Woodpecker CI (and my own docker registry, and my own Taiga server for project management, and my own baserow server to replace airtable, etc...) but the moment you say "just get a VPS to run this service that is available for free at $BIGCORP", you lost 90% of the potential users.

> available for free at $BIGCORP Is it really free, though? You get free service - MS gets everyone's code for free. Only a fool would believe that they don't use private repos for training. And even if it was free, do you really believe it is sustainable to just offer unlimited service for free to anyone? They've created an environment where you're punished for using anything but github. This is not good.

You are preaching to the choir: https://mastodon.communick.com/@raphael/115300000651115849

You don't need to convince me, you need to convince the millions of people who prefer the convenience of "Free as in Beer SaaS" over the resilience and self-sufficiency that we get by hosting our own systems.

Re: Codeberg Reaches 300k Projects

#84

Post by daneel_w »

type0 wrote: post #65
max_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Codeberg suffers from the same problem as sourcehut. They are so fanatical that many groups are unable to use them. Sourcehut for example is hostile towards cryptocurrency related projects. Coderberg is hostile towards private repos.

> Coderberg is hostile towards private repos Get real. It's a community project with limited resources. If they had the money for hosting I'm sure that would be offered for FOSS projects, which their bylaws requires to focus on.

A private repo doesn't cost more resources than a public one. The likeliest scenario is the exact opposite - popular public repos generate far more traffic and incur more costs.

Re: Codeberg Reaches 300k Projects

#85

Post by mariusor »

commoner wrote: post #56
mariusor wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an ironic turn of events the main repo is on github: https://github.com/forgefed/forgefed (and even without any mirrors on codeberg). :)

No, the main ForgeFed repo is on Codeberg: https://codeberg.org/ForgeFed/ForgeFed The README in both repos links to the main Codeberg repo and says that the GitHub repo is a mirror.

OK, thanx for the clarification. :)

Re: Codeberg Reaches 300k Projects

#86

Post by overfeed »

jeffrallen wrote: post #77
overfeed wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first 16 words of your comment makes it very smarmy,v and not including them would have improved it. GP's snark is misplaced, version control is but a subset of what forges offer, git has no social layer[1], and GitHub has a monopoly on this. A distributed social layer via ActivityPub would be a vast improvement over what we have now - at best, non-comprehensive one way synching of issues from GitHub into mirror…

GitHub must certainly does not have a monopoly on the social aspects of version control. But it does seem, from recent experience with e.g. Mastodon that the revealed preferences of users of social apps is for centralization. Even users (software developers) who likely have a higher familiarity with the pros and cons of centralization. Also: Ask yourself why did Linus "solve" VC decentralization, but not social softw…

> Ask yourself why did Linus "solve" VC decentralization, but not social software decentralization

Perhaps because it was out of scope? Linux kernel diffs are emailed, so Linus solved for email as the social layer, and it works well with mailing lists. If Pull Requests had predated git and the kernel had used them, Linus would have solved for

Re: Codeberg Reaches 300k Projects

#87

Post by dismalaf »

jasonvorhe wrote: post #64
blibble wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you being intentionally obtuse? are you? need I remind you, you said: > I want 100% certainty that if my side project makes money they're not going to come after me there is NEVER any certainty that your counterparty won't come after you, even if you think your contract is "unambiguous" because that not how the system works

all the usual arguments. I get where he's coming from, I thought like this for a long time as well. I wouldn't pride myself in having sold all my bitcoins in 2016. I regret having dabbled in stuff like ethereum around that time when I could've just stuck with bitcoin. I just didn't see it. conflating the nft/dao/web3/shitcoin sphere with bitcoin vibe with me either. good luck to him with paper money, I'm going with b…

This is a strange and random comment.

Re: Codeberg Reaches 300k Projects

#88

Post by [deleted] »

daneel_w wrote: post #35
max_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Codeberg suffers from the same problem as sourcehut. They are so fanatical that many groups are unable to use them. Sourcehut for example is hostile towards cryptocurrency related projects. Coderberg is hostile towards private repos.

> "They are so fanatical that many groups are unable to use them." I had open-sourced stuff there licensed under Creative Commons, which was forcibly removed. They do spell the license requirements out in their terms, I just can't wrap my head around the obstinacy. Calling it unhelpful do-goodery would be flattering. Fanatical is indeed the right word.

[deleted]

Re: Codeberg Reaches 300k Projects

#90

Post by XajniN »

blibble wrote: post #31
latexr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For many it isn’t easy to just up and abandon what they built on GitHub, especially if they have a big community and open issues and PRs. Familiarity also plays a big role, you can’t simply expect to open an account on a different forge and be done, it consumes time to get acquainted with the new stuff. Also GitHub may give access to more resources: For example, you can just use GitHub actions in your repo, private o…

> For many it isn’t easy to just up and abandon what they built on GitHub, especially if they have a big community and open issues and PRs. it's really easy because the codeberg importer is really good it correctly imports all your pull requests and issues, preserving usernames, everything you then put the new URL in the GitHub description and archive the project and then a year down the line you delete the GitHub re…

Why would you want to damage GitHub?
Post reply on HN