[flagged]
We need a federation of forges
111–120 of 424 posts
Re: We need a federation of forges
#112Can't we really go back to pre-github model? I mean all it did was to reduce the barrier for contributions. With current flood of AI generated PR it doesn't sound like a big inconvenience to have to register at code hosting service used by project you want to improve/participate in.
Re: We need a federation of forges
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
VC money is absolutely not a means to an end, what is signals is that the company doesn't care about community and only cares about profit. I'm with the OP you're replying to. Taking VC is an albatross that means a large portion of devs will never trust you or use your services (outside of bleeding your funds dry). If this place truly cared about community they should have made a non-profit or some type of NGO, basic…
You're badly missing reality here. There's no "community governance" as there would be in a local farm shop or something. It's a bunch of online people with interests. They aren't going to visit you if you're sick or coach your kid's team or attend your funeral.
The two reasons actual communities work in actual locations are: 1) because to some extent the people all live in a place and want the place to be nice for them and their (grand)children, so they are invested personally and 2) companies aren't set up to help communities. Communities are the ones doing community things. It's crazy to demand other people do work in a certain way when you're doing nothing.
Re: We need a federation of forges
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
VC money is absolutely not a means to an end, what is signals is that the company doesn't care about community and only cares about profit. I'm with the OP you're replying to. Taking VC is an albatross that means a large portion of devs will never trust you or use your services (outside of bleeding your funds dry). If this place truly cared about community they should have made a non-profit or some type of NGO, basic…
O yeah cuz the non profit tactic worked so well for OpenAI. OpenAI and Claude both took VC money and everyone on this message board uses them regardless of ~community~ Not all VCs are scum
It's not about VCs being scum but about investors needing a relatively fast return on investment which is understandable but also often times incompatible with investment in large scale, open source infrastructure.
Re: We need a federation of forges
#115Crazy... I actually hashed out a plan to begin bulding a successor to github earlier this week and this blog post describes EXACTLY what I was thinking about with atproto+git.
Good validation imho.
Re: We need a federation of forges
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
VC money is absolutely not a means to an end, what is signals is that the company doesn't care about community and only cares about profit. I'm with the OP you're replying to. Taking VC is an albatross that means a large portion of devs will never trust you or use your services (outside of bleeding your funds dry). If this place truly cared about community they should have made a non-profit or some type of NGO, basic…
This kind of absolutism is crazy. People who are doing 90% of what we want them to do should be greatly celebrated and rewarded. Else we penalize idealistic people who are not perfect instead of penalizing the people who are actually doing the opposite of what we care about (ex. Autodesk).
Do you want software to become as closed source as mechanical engineering? No! So let's celebrate people building software that's open source, even if it's VC funded! They are awesome for doing that!
Re: We need a federation of forges
#117You will never get around the free rider problem. If I want to create 100 repos of vibe coded projects every month someone will have to pay for it. At this point, just give me an honest version of GitHub that tells me what things actually cost. 5$ a repo, and another 1 per gb stored in LFS, cool.
Similar UI but donation based and public repo only: codeberg.org
Fixed low cost but different UI: sourcehut.org
Re: We need a federation of forges
#118Tangled 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…
How much work are you putting into simplicity? In my experience, in order for software to be permanent it needs to be like mold: only a single spore is required to grow a massive fruiting body and the spores themselves are very small and very uncomplicated. In this case, a spore is a single developer, and the simplicity is a low skill ceiling. Reproducibility does not benefit longetivity if the preconditions themselves themselves are highly complicated, and the benefit of simple bootstrapping is easily overshadowed if the software itself isn't friendly to being extensively hacked on by the average programmer.
Re: We need a federation of forges
#119This looks cool but the issue github is dealing with is exponential usage. They're trying to 30x their capacity right now - let that sink in! Microsoft here or there, any company would be struggling under this load. And I frankly don't think that any ideology driven alternative will ever be able to provide better uptime under the same load - or any alternative period, for that matter. We're just living in times where…
I agree that any company would struggle in such case. The thing is that everyone see that GH is pushing for more agents, their Copilot thingy, and AI everywhere, while basic functionality that people relies on is constantly failing. If you push a lot of new features but your baseline is constantly failing, then something is wrong.
If you're seriously using agents, you'll know that if they didn't offer that then people would rapidly switch platforms if they didn't. Maybe not all of them yet, but soon it will be all.
Re: We need a federation of forges
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's easier and enables more features to have 1 common platform.
For example, the social features of GitHub, which I like (like stars, browsing repositories by tags etc..)
But also For PRs, the way to make a pull request to a repo hosted at A, from your own node hosted at B.
And like other commenters said, you can do this workflow with git over email like a lot of projects to, but the main goal of the federation here to me is the user experience, the UI being able to link all of theses separate repositories, issues, PRs, etc, like everything was hosted at the same place.