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

121–130 of 424 posts

Re: We need a federation of forges

#121

Post by ddosmax556 »

hmokiguess wrote: post #39
ddosmax556 wrote: post #26

This 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…

You frame the symptom as the problem though. Others seem to be attributing this to Azure migration and Copilot overhead tightly coupled to GitHub infrastructure.

No the problem is that github has to stem exponential usage increase and prepare 30x of their capacity, that's not symptom, that's problem.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#122

Post by icy »

ux266478 wrote: post #118
icy wrote: post #47

Earlier 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…

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 themselv…

I've written about this: https://anirudh.fi/future

Re: We need a federation of forges

#123

Post by ineptech »

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…

How can they ever see a dollar of profit without a rug pull, license change or hosted moat? This is a neat idea - besides just replacing github, a network of loosely-federated git servers seems like a promising base for distributed social media or chat platform someday - but it seems like the only way it can really stay open is if you're planning to stiff your investors.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#124

Post by AlecSchueler »

kikki wrote: post #92
shimman wrote: post #74

Earlier 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…

> the company doesn't care about community and only cares about profit. There are plenty of examples of VC funded companies that care about community & don't "only care about profit". Bluesky is a good one (literally a community / social platform). That's such a black & white take it baffles me. > Taking VC is an albatross that means a large portion of devs will never trust you or use your services A "large portion o…

> Probably _most_ services devs use are VC funded. GitHub, was VC funded?

GitHub was founded in a very different world. Would we start using it today is the question.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#125

Post by haskman »

ecshafer wrote: post #90
varun_ch wrote: post #86

Earlier 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.

They do if you want to collaborate with others. No one is going to want to create accounts on your personal instance

Re: We need a federation of forges

#126

Post by FatFingers23 »

I'd like to preface I'm pretty active in atprotocol ecosystem, so my experience is more than likely a bit more biased, but thought I'd share some of my thoughts as a big fan of tangled.

I've really enjoyed Tangled. It has so far been what I've wanted from a GitHub replacement, is simpler and does not have as many features, but it has been the main social/git provider I've been using for personal open source projects for about a year now (this me https://tangled.org/did:plc:rnpkyqnmsw4ipey6eotbdnnf)

- It has a social graph connected to it I know from the social media I use (Bluesky), it's nice to put a face/name I may have seen to their commits/prs/issues

- Is nice it's login is the same as other things I use

- They have recently added built in support for static sites, nice for those client side webites or simple index.htmls you want to host somewhere straight from your git repo.

- Spindles is their build system/actions. Not a nix fan, but they do use some flavor of that and have worked really well for what I've needed

- An open API that allows me to easily render information thanks to being built on shared standards I know (atproto). I've built bots and wrote a few features into npmx.dev that uses various things from tangled easily thanks to that.

- Ability to run your own knot(git server) and runner (spindles), or easily use the ones they host, but the cool thing about this is the social features are separate so even if you have a separate git server the issues/prs/etc are all coming from that shared social layer, not like they need to make an account on it to partake in the convo.

It's not perfect. It has alpha in the navbar and does feel like that sometimes. I am missing some features, but all in all I've really enjoyed using it for my open source work and will more than likely continue using it going forward.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#127

Post by code-blooded »

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…

I don't say you specifically have bad intentions or that VC money is all evil.

But now you need to grow fast, which greatly increases the risk for me as your potential user, so you should at the very least write a post to make sure you're aligned with your users not just with your angels.

How are you going to use the money? What's the business model? How do you ensure you're around in 10+ years? How are you going to please your overlords with that business model and what will you do if they force you to squeeze more money out of the business?

I hope you succeed, because the competition is good for users, but VC-founding is a liability not a strength.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#128

Post by AlecSchueler »

madamelic wrote: post #41

The problem I feel with federated solutions is basically the 'cold start' problem. When you are wanting to join a federated network, you have two choices: join a pre-existing server thereby creating the exact same problem you are escaping, ie: a giant server that holds you to its whims, BUT you do get a big network to begin with. Or you start your own server but your network is zero, discoverability is zero, your fee…

That's been entirely my own experience, or at least the assumption that's kept me off all of them so far.

But I saw this project a few days ago and thought to myself "Hey, this one could actually work." The difference here is that the target audience has a pretty strong overlap with the part of society comfortable with self hosting services.

I don't need my whole network for this one to be useful, only that subset that's actually most likely to show up.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#130

Post by steveklabnik »

horsawlarway wrote: post #95
whereistejas wrote: post #2

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

I don't really see it. I used JJ for a bit, but I personally really, really dislike the anonymous branch approach it forces you into. Branches are just useful conceptually, at least to me. For the same reason I like my documents grouped into folders. Frankly - I think JJ just ended up taking up far more mental bandwidth than git. Simple operations need generated ids, commands require complicated input (ex - the entir…

If you cherry pick complicated commands, and remove all context, sure, they look cryptic.

I wrote that tutorial, and literally only one of those is relevant to my day to day work: jj new o, which means “make a new change on top of the change named o”. Yes, if you remove the context that “o” is on your screen and highlighted, it looks complex.

It’s the same with the other “jj new” command: you’re producing a merge by giving it every branch you want to merge together. If you’re merging five branches into one, you need to provide five identifiers for those branches. It could not be simpler than this. And -m adds a message, same as git.

The other two are showing off the power of the revset language; you’re not typing this stuff in yourself more than once, and if you are, you use an alias so that it’s shorter and easier to use.

Post reply on HN