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

Why developers are ditching GitHub for Codeberg and self-hosting alternatives

howtogeek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 289 posts

Re: Why developers are ditching GitHub for Codeberg and self-hosting alternatives

#211

Post by saghm »

pluto_modadic wrote: post #203
MintsJohn wrote: post #170

I tried codeberg, used it a year, then early this year in all their wisdom codeberg decided to show adverserial random text instead of my repo, reporteldly to mess up llm training to user agents they weren't sure were human. Codeberg had one job, serve my repo, it didn't do that, when brought up, I was told it was a feature not a bug, they could maybe whitelist me but that wasn't my problem, it was that random people…

codeberg's one job gets interfered with by freeloaders hammering expensive views (like git blame) inconsiderately.

Couldn't they just rate limit them? Are they literally using a new IP for every request?

Re: Why developers are ditching GitHub for Codeberg and self-hosting alternatives

#212

Post by bogwog »

dijksterhuis wrote: post #117
inigyou wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes GitLab "industry-standard" and Forgejo not?

one reason (among others) — compliance. a corporate/b2b saas environment without stuff like this is often a non starter. - SOC2 - ISO/IEC 27001:2022 - ISO/IEC 27017:2015 - ISO/IEC 27018:2019 - VPAT 508 https://about.gitlab.com/security/ no mention of these on the forejo site, so i can’t put “our internal software is all SOC2/ISO NUMBER compliant” as a bullet point on a slide deck. it is theatre. but it’s industry the…

Aren't those about organizational processes instead of just specific software features? For example, I don't think self-hosting gitlab is enough to claim ISO/IEC 27001, just based on this snippet from wikipedia:

> ISO/IEC 27001 requires that management:

> Systematically examine the organization's information security risks, taking account of the threats, vulnerabilities, and impacts;

> Design and implement a coherent and comprehensive suite of information security controls and/or other forms of risk treatment (such as risk avoidance or risk transfer) to address those risks that are deemed unacceptable; and

> Adopt an overarching management process to ensure that the information security controls continue to meet the organization's information security needs on an ongoing basis.

Re: Why developers are ditching GitHub for Codeberg and self-hosting alternatives

#213

Post by kps »

harrisi wrote: post #190
hackthemack wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your complaint about Anubis? I see the "checking if you are human" kind of text too when going to codeberg, but it is usually only a second or two. It is because I run a bit of obfuscation and resistance to browser finger printing. But you find seeing the text for a couple of seconds too annoying to use codeberg? Maybe it is more than 2 seconds for you? Everyone has their views on what is acceptable in the world a…

I believe they're referencing iocaine[0], which I believe I've seen on codeberg before. I may be wrong though. [0]: https://iocaine.madhouse-project.org/

[0] Gives me HTTP 418

Re: Why developers are ditching GitHub for Codeberg and self-hosting alternatives

#214

Post by bogwog »

sunaookami wrote: post #140
tovej wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's a good thing. Being "neutral" _is_ taking a side. It means you're taking an amoral stance even in big questions. Every organization has a stance. We're just become used to companies that take a stance of "as long as we get paid".

No, being "neutral" is not "taking a side", that's the definition of the word. If you pre-moderate you open a whole can of worms. What will they ban next? This makes me not want to use Codeberg ever because it's not plannable.

If you're going to jump ship because they're banning AI slop, then I think the feature is working as intended.

Re: Why developers are ditching GitHub for Codeberg and self-hosting alternatives

#215

Post by littlecranky67 »

nearlyepic wrote: post #196
xpct wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sucks, but that ship has sailed. I'm not sure how they'll handle the issue of most new repos being AI generated, if they continue using new code for training. If the world accepts LLMs as a valid method for license washing, I don't see how I can fight it.

> It sucks, but that ship has sailed. Hey, this attitude sucks. Would you tell this to someone who got beat up in an alley?

That is exactly what I would say. He got beat up, it is a fact and happened in the past. Unless you have a timemachine to undo it, nothing can make that undone. Now you can endulge in pain, anger, misery etc. - or you could get up, swallow the pain and look forward.

Re: Why developers are ditching GitHub for Codeberg and self-hosting alternatives

#216

Post by anematode »

saghm wrote: post #211
pluto_modadic wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

codeberg's one job gets interfered with by freeloaders hammering expensive views (like git blame) inconsiderately.

Couldn't they just rate limit them? Are they literally using a new IP for every request?

There are indeed scrapers which use tens of thousands of distinct IPs, and so rate limiting them isn't a solution.

Re: Why developers are ditching GitHub for Codeberg and self-hosting alternatives

#217

Post by TheChaplain »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #156
intunderflow wrote: post #97

FYI that Codeberg is currently holding a vote to broadly ban projects written mostly using AI, so its not a neutral space for hosting your projects like GitHub: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253 https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116880003584050912

I've been on Codeberg for my projects since September but will pull them if this happens. I see no definition of what "mostly using AI" means and refuse to be "punished" for the choice of tooling I use. The tone and content of the thread on Mastodon is absolutely toxic. I'd rather self-host than deal with the ambiguity and threats. Invariably from people who don't even make anything. I have plenty of concerns around…

If I understand it correctly, their target is projects like the recent pgrust (PostgreSQL in rust) which are full conversions of projects that no-one else will ever use. It's just noise.

Re: Why developers are ditching GitHub for Codeberg and self-hosting alternatives

#218

Post by cmrdporcupine »

bogwog wrote: post #214
sunaookami wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, being "neutral" is not "taking a side", that's the definition of the word. If you pre-moderate you open a whole can of worms. What will they ban next? This makes me not want to use Codeberg ever because it's not plannable.

If you're going to jump ship because they're banning AI slop, then I think the feature is working as intended.

Calling all uses of such tooling "AI slop" right away shows your hand as only holding a blunt, crude, instrument.

Many of us are capable of more nuance that that and don't apply the label "slop" to everything where generative AI is involved. The linked Mastodon shows no nuance, and neither does your reply.

Two things can be true at once: GitHub has degraded into a "slop" cesspit and that agentic tooling has legitimate use cases.

Finally people can also legitimately object to a host mandating what tools can be used in authorship even if they don't particularly care for those tools themselves.

Re: Why developers are ditching GitHub for Codeberg and self-hosting alternatives

#219

Post by infecto »

hackthemack wrote: post #180
MintsJohn wrote: post #170

I tried codeberg, used it a year, then early this year in all their wisdom codeberg decided to show adverserial random text instead of my repo, reporteldly to mess up llm training to user agents they weren't sure were human. Codeberg had one job, serve my repo, it didn't do that, when brought up, I was told it was a feature not a bug, they could maybe whitelist me but that wasn't my problem, it was that random people…

Is your complaint about Anubis? I see the "checking if you are human" kind of text too when going to codeberg, but it is usually only a second or two. It is because I run a bit of obfuscation and resistance to browser finger printing. But you find seeing the text for a couple of seconds too annoying to use codeberg? Maybe it is more than 2 seconds for you? Everyone has their views on what is acceptable in the world a…

It’s not Anubis as others have pointed out, they have more going on that blocks you sometimes.

With that said I never used code berg because of Anubis. Something about anime girls popping up turns off any desire to use the product.

Re: Why developers are ditching GitHub for Codeberg and self-hosting alternatives

#220

Post by rozularen »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #83
hambos22 wrote: post #24

It's been 9 months since I ditched Github. Currently I self-host Gitea [0], use its registry for Docker, NPM etc and act runners [1] for github actions alternative, everything secured under tailnet. I'm extremely satisfied with that setup. It is batteries included & fire and forget. Now I use Github only as backup by mirroring my self hosted repos. [0] https://gitea.com [1] https://docs.gitea.com/usage/actions/act-ru…

I self host gitea for my personal-personal projects, the ones nobody will ever see. For the personal-opensource ones, I am on Github because this is where everyone is when I want to share/collaborate etc

actually good approach and the one that could make me switch to selfhosting
Post reply on HN