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

81–90 of 424 posts

Re: We need a federation of forges

#81

Post by u_fucking_dork »

tenacious_tuna wrote: post #70
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.

> or if you use SSO because you're an enterprise

Enterprise Cloud up time is 100% for last 90 days for most services, with a one being at 99.98 and one at 99.97.

Enterprise customers get an SLA

Re: We need a federation of forges

#82

Post by whereistejas »

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…

its one of the most complex htmx projects i have seen. super cool.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#83

Post by aejm »

icy wrote: post #47
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?

Tangled is built entirely in the open: https://tangled.org/tangled.org/core , and our primary goal is to be "permanent software"—i.e. be fully reproducible and entirely self-hostable at minimal cost. VC money is a means to an end. We're both Indian founders in Europe, and grants are nigh on impossible to find (4–12+ months for anything to materialize). VC is quite simply the quickest way for us to build a team, setup…

In the latest FOSS project I’m starting, I’m not avoiding all “open core” supposedly FOSS projects. In my experience, they’re the projects most likely to do a rug pull and change licenses. If they cannot commit to their entire project being free and open, they are less likely to actually be committed to the principles of free and open software.

While I was quite excited about some of the ideas being discussed in this project, it being VC backed is a complete non starter for me. Your claims of being built in the open don’t make me feel any better, you will eventually need to make returns for investors.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#84

Post by OneDeuxTriSeiGo »

pfraze wrote: post #61
OneDeuxTriSeiGo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Exactly. I'm personally slowly working on my own parallel "appview" of tangled that is accessible exclusively via SMTP, IMAP, JMAP, and eventually integration with a Lore + Patchwork frontend.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#85

Post by Ritewut »

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?

I don't mind VC funding as long as they aren't YC funded.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#86

Post by varun_ch »

ecshafer wrote: post #53

Why? I really don't see the purpose of a federation of git repos. Git is already totally decentralized. 99% of projects only have a small list of committers. Tangled just doesn't solve an actual problem. Github was used because it was an easy to set up, free, place to store code and share it, and it had source viewing which was a step up from sourceforge. With multiple solutions available that makes this easy, its ju…

There’s a lot more to GitHub than just the git part. Issues, PRs, etc.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#87

Post by OneDeuxTriSeiGo »

colesantiago wrote: post #71
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?

When a project is funded by these VCs I question: Why does it need VCs? Why not company and corporate sponsorship like Ladybird? Why should we spend our time on a developer tool that would be enshittified down the line when VCs expect 10x returns?

In this case the VC in question is funding various atproto projects as they are one of the primary backing VCs for Bluesky.

So even if they don't expect returns from a given atproto project, they are investing money (and therefore funding FTEs) in the ecosystem at large.

The investment isn't necessarily in any one of these projects in isolation. It's in the AT protocol at large.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#88

Post by [deleted] »

knowtheory wrote: post #35
compyman wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading that - I'm really not sure that AT Protocol has a much better story there either. (as I understand it) the data has to live in a PDS, PDS are keyed by accounts, so you are similarly stymied for collaborative projects? I guess AT Proto is still a real work in progress so maybe that story has improved since the last time I checked it out.

Yeah, capability for group permissions is a key part of the work happening on permissioned data in ATproto right now. https://dholms.leaflet.pub/3meluqcwky22a https://dholms.leaflet.pub/3mfrsbcn2gk2a https://dholms.leaflet.pub/3mguviy6iks2a https://dholms.leaflet.pub/3mhj6bcqats2o

[deleted]

Re: We need a federation of forges

#89

Post by icy »

colesantiago wrote: post #71
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?

When a project is funded by these VCs I question: Why does it need VCs? Why not company and corporate sponsorship like Ladybird? Why should we spend our time on a developer tool that would be enshittified down the line when VCs expect 10x returns?

> Why does it need VCs? Why not company and corporate sponsorship like Ladybird?

You talk about corporate sponsorship like that's trivial to find. Trust me when I say we spent over half a year chasing down grants/sponsorships only to be met with closed doors, extremely long wait times for pennies. We'd also be required to keep our day jobs—which means less focus on Tangled dev, and ultimately very slow progress overall.

We debated VC heavily (we're both idealists after all), but figured we can make it work—it's ultimately the founders that make bad calls leading to enshittification. There's plenty of examples of VC-backed companies that haven't enshittified. Tailscale is an excellent one, and hence we brought on Avery as an angel in our round.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#90

Post by ecshafer »

varun_ch wrote: post #86
ecshafer wrote: post #53

Why? I really don't see the purpose of a federation of git repos. Git is already totally decentralized. 99% of projects only have a small list of committers. Tangled just doesn't solve an actual problem. Github was used because it was an easy to set up, free, place to store code and share it, and it had source viewing which was a step up from sourceforge. With multiple solutions available that makes this easy, its ju…

There’s a lot more to GitHub than just the git part. Issues, PRs, etc.

Why does issues and prs need to be federated? I can't think of any part of Github that benefits from federation. Just set up your own instance.
Post reply on HN