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

241–250 of 289 posts

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

#241

Post by Brian_K_White »

wseqyrku wrote: post #147
stanac wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your question. If I was working for GH would I be selfhosting forgejo? edit: If you think I sound like an LLM, I guess that is what happens when most of your interactions in English language are with LLMs.

> If I was working for GH would I be selfhosting forgejo? Why not. But you are saying github as a dumb backup makes sense when you do self-hosting. I don't think you really believe that.

GH as a backup and a downstream public mirror for a self-hosted gitea or similar is entirely purposful. None of your comments have made any sense.

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

#242

Post by asnelt »

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #167
jorisw wrote: post #15

Sentiment for/against GitHub aside... "Why X are doing Y" articles like these pretend that the premise of "X are doing Y" is true, conveniently skipping to the "Why" before proving that the premise is even accurate in any meaningful way. This is why I never buy headlines that start out with "Why". > developers are ditching Proceeds to list but a handful of remotely meaningful repos against the hundreds of thousands o…

It’s just a PR article to promote alternative

Given the context, I had to read this twice to understand that PR is not referring to Pull Request here.

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

#243

Post by intothemild »

kps wrote: post #213
harrisi wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A rare event you see a wild "HTTP I'm a little Teapot"

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

#244

Post by [deleted] »

metacritic12 wrote: post #171
jorisw wrote: post #15

Sentiment for/against GitHub aside... "Why X are doing Y" articles like these pretend that the premise of "X are doing Y" is true, conveniently skipping to the "Why" before proving that the premise is even accurate in any meaningful way. This is why I never buy headlines that start out with "Why". > developers are ditching Proceeds to list but a handful of remotely meaningful repos against the hundreds of thousands o…

If I didn't know any better, I would think this is a thinly veiled marketing piece by "Codeberg", a company that I never heard of until this headline. https://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

[deleted]

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

#245

Post by harrisi »

kps wrote: post #213
harrisi wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Interesting. Well, for information about the project: https://lib.rs/crates/iocaine

The site linked is excluded from the wayback machine.

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

#246

Post by kps »

BrenBarn wrote: post #17

So sad to see that no articles about this even mention Mercurial. This is a golden opportunity for Hg providers to shine.

I never liked git and held on the Mercurial until a couple years ago. Now, for all I do, jj is a better Mercurial than Mercurial.

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

#247

Post by MintsJohn »

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…

No, the issue is when i visited i got a page of senseless drivel (maybe https://lib.rs/crates/iocaine) with the message i was a bot. There was no way around it except "contact support" as the message said the fix, to solve it myself, was to not be a bot.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48845668 explains it better than i did.

I accessed through mobile, maybe got a bad ip, i don't don't know. But i never could access my repo, and incidently a day before when i tried to share some markdown file in the repo, they told me it wasn't there (i thought it was a them problem then, as i didn't see it).

So that experience and the way it was handled totally ruined my trust. If randomly people can't even access the repo, and that is "working as intended", what's the use to host it there.

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

#248

Post by lloydatkinson »

kstrauser wrote: post #221
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.

You’re so right. I have a public-facing Forgejo server. Before configuring Anubis, scrapers were sending it about 600K requests per day. Copying and pasting from my blog post about it: * For every Git commit, fetch the version of every file in the repository at that commit. * See git blame for every file at every commit. * Attempt to download the archive of each repo at every commit. * Run every possible pull request…

This matches my experience of running a public mediawiki server. The bots (mostly Facebook/Meta) will for every single change fetch every single page again, over and over.

I can’t tell if it’s incompetence or malice.

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

#249

Post by wseqyrku »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #241
wseqyrku wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I was working for GH would I be selfhosting forgejo? Why not. But you are saying github as a dumb backup makes sense when you do self-hosting. I don't think you really believe that.

GH as a backup and a downstream public mirror for a self-hosted gitea or similar is entirely purposful. None of your comments have made any sense.

Yeah I should've asked why they are self-hosting in the first place. I was wrong in assuming that they wanted to host it themselves (that is, avoiding an external dependency).

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

#250

Post by onesandofgrain »

hambos22 wrote: post #37
onesandofgrain wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You use github as a backup, why bother self-hosting then?

Github is an extra layer of backup, among normal backups. [edit] Notable reasons: - Github runners went oftenly out of space & they were slow. With self hosted runners I don't have these issues anymore because I control the hardware. Previously I was paying Docker Build Cloud/Depot for performance + Github Pro for extra minutes. Now it's zero cost, superb performance and unlimited minutes. - I have a centralized regi…

If you're using github as a backup, then whatever you say you own, they also own. So I still don't understand why you are self-hosting and using github as an extra layer of backup. Seems philosophically inconsistent.
Post reply on HN