Live data from Hacker News

Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

unterwaditzer.net

101–110 of 385 posts

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#101

I am really really amazed at how many people discount this alternative because it does not work but do not realize that they are being slaves to Microsoft by using Github. Honestly, I do not get it.

Apparently they have issues with self-hosting and basic git usage so I am not surprised, but yes, so many open source advocates, yet they literally depend on Microsoft, a bit too much.

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#102
codeberg.org still requires "javascript" aka one of the massive whatng cartel c++ written web engines. Do prefer sourcehut or others which are not web apps, in other words are web sites (classic web, or noscript/basic html for critical core functions at least, like issue tracking).

microsoft carefully broke classic web support overtime, THX AGAIN MICROSOFT, WE LOVE YOU!

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#103
post #5

Lazy has nothing to do with it, codeberg simply doesn't work. Most of my friends who use codeberg are staunch cloudflare-opponents, but cloudflare is what keeps Gitlab alive. Fact of life is that they're being attacked non-stop, and need some sort of DDoS filter. Codeberg has that anubis thing now I guess? But they still have downtime, and the worst thing ever for me as a developer is having the urge to code and not…

Maybe I'm too old school, but both GitHub and Codeberg for me are asyncronous "I want to send/share the code somehow", not "my active workspace I require to do work". But reading > the worst thing ever for me as a developer is having the urge to code and not being able to access my remote. Makes it seem like GitHub/Codeberg has to be online for you to be able to code, is that really the case? If so, how does that hap…

My main exposure to Codeberg is Zig and it has an issue tracker there and I pull in changes from it.

For how infrequent I interface with Codeberg I have to say that my experience has been pretty terrible when it comes to availability.

So I guess the answer is: the availability is bad enough that even infrequent interactions with it are a problem.

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#105

I am really really amazed at how many people discount this alternative because it does not work but do not realize that they are being slaves to Microsoft by using Github. Honestly, I do not get it.

> being slaves to Microsoft

An overly ideological PoV can make it easy to overlook that some people are simply on Github from a practical standpoint. I myself host Forgejo and moved a lot of stuff there. I don't really find a good reason to host anything on Codeberg, yet. Github still offers me a nice set of repos to find via the people I follow there.

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#106
post #5

Lazy has nothing to do with it, codeberg simply doesn't work. Most of my friends who use codeberg are staunch cloudflare-opponents, but cloudflare is what keeps Gitlab alive. Fact of life is that they're being attacked non-stop, and need some sort of DDoS filter. Codeberg has that anubis thing now I guess? But they still have downtime, and the worst thing ever for me as a developer is having the urge to code and not…

OP is about Github. Have you seen the Github uptime monitor? It’s at 90% [1] for the last 90 days. I use both Codeberg and Github a lot and Github has, by far, more problems than Codeberg. Sometimes I notice slowdowns on Codeberg, but that’s it.

[1] https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#107
post #5

Lazy has nothing to do with it, codeberg simply doesn't work. Most of my friends who use codeberg are staunch cloudflare-opponents, but cloudflare is what keeps Gitlab alive. Fact of life is that they're being attacked non-stop, and need some sort of DDoS filter. Codeberg has that anubis thing now I guess? But they still have downtime, and the worst thing ever for me as a developer is having the urge to code and not…

Maybe I'm too old school, but both GitHub and Codeberg for me are asyncronous "I want to send/share the code somehow", not "my active workspace I require to do work". But reading > the worst thing ever for me as a developer is having the urge to code and not being able to access my remote. Makes it seem like GitHub/Codeberg has to be online for you to be able to code, is that really the case? If so, how does that hap…

You’re right this is the proper way to use git. And I encourage developers to use their own cloud storage (or remote volume) for their primary remote.

Even with the best habits, there will be the few times a month where you forgot to push everything up and you’re blocked from work.

Codeberg needs to meet the highest ability levels for it to be viable.

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#108
post #81

Why? I want to understand why? Out of principle? I think some services just end up becoming foundational and we need to move on to other things for other things e.g if we're going to replace GitHub it's because we're creating new habits. Not because we're replacing like for like. That never works. What is a new code hosting platform offering. You know what, pair it with some app dev and great, now you've got somethin…

Why does this post exist? I assume because of the Copilot story that's also trending and the subsequent loss of trust. Not sure if Github has serious alternatives, but the desire to move is not for 'nothing'.

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#109
post #104

I am really really amazed at how many people discount this alternative because it does not work but do not realize that they are being slaves to Microsoft by using Github. Honestly, I do not get it.

What’s the hate on Microsoft?

It's not hate, it is that everybody complains about their services and their predatory behavior but somehow Github gets a free pass. As if it were going to be free forever, and well maintained...

Re: Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From their FAQ: > If you do not contribute to free/libre software (or if it is limited to your personal homepage) , and we feel like you only abuse Codeberg for storing your commercial projects or media backups, we might get unhappy about that. Emphasis mine. This isn't about if it's technically possible (it certainly is), it's whether or not it's allowed by their platform policies. Their page publishing feature seem…

Reading what you quoted, no it is not, as long as you contribute to free software or you have projects that are open source. Not just your personal homepage. If you only have a personal homepage and nothing else that is open source, then they have a problem. My 2 cents.

Which makes it not really a suitable replacement for GitHub, which is my entire point.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying Codeberg is bad, but it's terms of use are pretty clear in the sense that they only really want FOSS and anyone who has something other than FOSS better look elsewhere. GitHub allowed you to basically put up anything that's "yours" and the license wasn't really their concern - that isn't the case with Codeberg. It's not about price or anything either; it'd be fine if the offer was "either give us 5$ for the privilege of private repositories or only publish and contribute public FOSS code" - I'm fine paying cash for that if need be.

One of the big draws of GitHub (and what got me to properly learn git) back in the day with GitHub Pages in particular was "I can write an HTML page, do a git push and anyone can see it". Then you throw on top an SSG (GitHub had out of the box support for Jekyll, but back then you could rig Travis CI up for other page generators if you knew what you were doing), and with a bit of technical knowledge, anyone could host a blog without the full on server stack. Codeberg cannot provide that sort of experience with their current terms of service.

Even sourcehut has, from what I can tell, a more lenient approach to what they provide (and the only reason why I wouldn't recommend sourcehut as a GitHub replacement is because git-by-email isn't really workable for most people anymore). They encourage FOSS licensing, but from what I can tell don't force it in their platform policies. (The only thing they openly ban is cryptocurrency related projects, which seems fair because cryptocurrency is pretty much always associated with platform abuse.)

Post reply on HN