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

We need a federation of forges

blog.tangled.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 424 posts

Re: We need a federation of forges

#61

Post by pfraze »

OneDeuxTriSeiGo wrote: post #55
code-blooded wrote: post #36

Tangled is VC sponsored. It doesn't scream stability to me, but rather "we need to grow at all cost". I don't see the appeal. Even though it's federated, when development stops, who will be there to fix bugs and maintain it?

> who will be there to fix bugs and maintain it? Those of us who use it. Tangled is a neat project and architecturally it makes a lot of interesting choices but code-wise it's relatively simple and from my personal forays in it I'd say pretty easy to maintain. The majority of the codebase is loosely related go modules. Then some static HTML+CSS. And finally a small sprinkle of typescript to tie things together. And o…

The most valuable thing Tangled will ever do is establish the protocol of Tangled. Once that’s done, it lives as long as people are willing to run it.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#63

Post by knotbin »

colesantiago wrote: post #59
knotbin wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You completely missed the point. The point isn't that you should find a company that you trust and think is ethical. The point is to shift the power dynamics so you don't have to trust anyone. That's what building on ATproto does. Tangled is also fully open source and anyone can host their own knot and AppView.

You seem to have missed the fact that Bluesky is funded by the same crypto VC. Look how well that has turned out even though Bluesky is open source. Tangled is not funded by the community. It would be better if it was rather than it be owned by VCs.

> Look how well that has turned out even though Bluesky is open source.

??? Bluesky can make decisions, mistakes, or moderation choices you disagree with and you can just go to https://blacksky.community, a completely independent AppView with different moderation that was up for the entirety of a 24hr outage Bluesky recently had.

I'd say AT Protocol is turning out pretty well.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#64

Post by willio58 »

Lots of negativity in the comments and while I'm as distrusting of VC funding as the next guy I think competition in this space is something we should encourage, and bootstrapping that is hard if not impossible at this point. Obviously this post was timed well with the 2-3 GitHub-hating posts that made it to the top of HN yesterday, but I commend the attempt here. I hope it takes off in a meaningful way.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#66

Post by whereistejas »

Kye wrote: post #6
whereistejas wrote: post #2

tangled is a really cool project; the most important feature it provides is that it is jujutsu first.

I assume you don't mean Tangled is an expert martial artist. Can you translate this to not-a-dev-but-uses-git?

oopsie; should have added links.

`jj` is a wrapper around git and offers a much better dev-ex for managing changes.

it has features like:

- conflicts are first class citizens

- `rebase` is the default mode; there is no need for an interactive rebase mode.

- all descendant changes automatically rebase

- a much more intuitive version of `git reflog`. in `jj`, we have `jj op log`

- cheap branching: branches in `jj` are just tags (or bookmarks) that can be moved around

Re: We need a federation of forges

#67

Post by austin-cheney »

I really don't understand this fear about a single pillar of failure, as people were in tears about the Ghostty thread yesterday. git is not GitHub. git is not HTTP. git is inherently decentralized with no concept of client/server. In git there is only local and a plurality of remotes.

That said the solution is simple. Open a secondary, or a new primary, account with another provider and add it to your project's list of remotes. Here:

    git remote add
If further explanation is needed see SO: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/42830557/git-remote-add-...

Boom, problem solved: do it yourself redundancy/decentralization. If you want to make this federated then write a file containing a variety of remotes per addressed location and a script to dynamically update git according to your catalog at every location.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#68

Post by dreamcompiler »

short_sells_poo wrote: post #15

Slight tangent: the post says that github is crumbling. Can someone get me up to date on what's going on please? Admittedly I'm not following tech drama particularly closely, but I thought I'd have heard if a major thing like github was going down the chute.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47940921

Re: We need a federation of forges

#70

Post by tenacious_tuna »

austin-cheney wrote: post #67

I really don't understand this fear about a single pillar of failure, as people were in tears about the Ghostty thread yesterday. git is not GitHub. git is not HTTP. git is inherently decentralized with no concept of client/server. In git there is only local and a plurality of remotes. That said the solution is simple. Open a secondary, or a new primary, account with another provider and add it to your project's list…

> Boom, problem solved

Not if your CI depends on github, or if you have specific actions to review things, or if you use SSO because you're an enterprise, or....

Workarounds exist for each of these cases, but they add significant friction. That's not terrible if you're one person, but if you're an org? big problem.

Post reply on HN