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

I regret migrating to Codeberg

xn--gckvb8fzb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 617 posts

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#21

Post by boramalper »

anticorporate wrote: post #10

The author seems annoyed that Codeberg wants to focus on projects that have a legitimate contributor community and is not designed for one-off individual projects. I don't share that concern. It's not all that different from Mastodon instances. It's a community space, and the community gets to decide who they allow to use their resources. Personally, I have a group of friends who share a GitLab instance, for example.…

> The author seems annoyed that Codeberg wants to focus on projects that have a legitimate contributor community and is not designed for one-off individual projects.

I think Codeberg was never intended for one-off individual projects in the first place, such as them discouraging private repositories. Quoting their Terms of Use [0]:

> Private repositories are only allowed for things required for FLOSS projects, like storing secrets, team-internal discussions or hiding projects from the public until they're ready for usage and/or contribution. [...]

And this makes a ton of sense, because Codeberg is a community-funded volunteer-supported non-profit, and it doesn't make sense to spend their resources for repositories that don't benefit the public.

I think "legitimate contributor community" is just an excuse so I am not going to dwell on it. From Ghostty to Redis, rsync to Linux kernel, more and more FOSS projects are taking advantage of various AI tools in a responsible manner and closing the door on them is just unfortunate and backward in my opinion. We gain nothing from this change and lose a ton of progress in software freedom and digital commons.

> It's not all that different from Mastodon instances. It's a community space, and the community gets to decide who they allow to use their resources.

Of course, and the bigger community gets to discuss their decision. :)

[0] https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/TermsOfUse...

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#22

Post by Aachen »

vintagedave wrote: post #20
Aachen wrote: post #16

I'm a member of Codeberg and was allowed to vote on these amendments. There was the annual assembly meeting before the ballots were sent by email. Each proposal had a short presentation and a few minutes of Q&A. It wasn't a discussion (the text was final at this point), it was just to ask for clarifications. In the meeting I asked about the server load that they mentioned in their presentation, but misphrased it and…

Troubling, though I see it's a typical internet half-off-topic discussion. What kind of conversation has been present in the chat room?

I didn't join the chat so I don't know that. It's final now anyway, nobody can change the text (next year you can propose another vote). No idea what the point would be of ephemeral conversations about it

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#23

Post by rootlocus »

charcircuit wrote: post #7

>and the only cOmMuNiTy they have around them are the users requesting features or reporting bugs Not even this. Most open source software is solely used by the creator and usually soon after abandoned. The idea of starting a new project and abandoning it after the honeymoon period is nowhere near a new phenomenon.

I have ~100 repos on github and only a few of them with LLM assistance. Aside from a few comments and a PR here and there throughout the years nobody cares about them. I have to assume it's the same for the majority of developers.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#24

Post by nylonstrung »

anticorporate wrote: post #10

The author seems annoyed that Codeberg wants to focus on projects that have a legitimate contributor community and is not designed for one-off individual projects. I don't share that concern. It's not all that different from Mastodon instances. It's a community space, and the community gets to decide who they allow to use their resources. Personally, I have a group of friends who share a GitLab instance, for example.…

I do think the author is right that the Codeberg post was wrong to assert that "community" is a measure of the legitimacy of a FOSS project

A massive amount of technology runs on essentially single-contributor projects with pretty much no "community": xz, core-js, GnuPG, NTPd, OpenSSL, cURL

They didn't need to make that implication or alienate solo devs in order to drive home their point

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#25

Post by FireInsight »

itsmartapuntocm wrote: post #9
Rendello wrote: post #4

If you click to another tab, the site changes its title and favicon to a random webpage like: - Pick up lines suggestions – ChatGPT - Rick Astley - Never Gonna Give You Up - Youtube - Amazon.com: waifu pillow When you go back to it there's an overlay chastising you for allowing JS on an untrusted website. I thought it was pretty funny. You can see the list of fake pages in the source (which has the sketchiest URL eve…

I feel like it's a bit ironic that the blog post chastises Codeberg for taking a stance and then does the same with JS.

The whole blog post is also taking a stance. What is criticized is the specific stance taken by Codeberg. TFA seems to state that Codeberg should allow projects of all kinds to be hosted on their service (though apparently artificially limiting their resources would be alright).

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#26

Post by boramalper »

Aachen wrote: post #16

I'm a member of Codeberg and was allowed to vote on these amendments. There was the annual assembly meeting before the ballots were sent by email. Each proposal had a short presentation and a few minutes of Q&A. It wasn't a discussion (the text was final at this point), it was just to ask for clarifications. In the meeting I asked about the server load that they mentioned in their presentation, but misphrased it and…

> I also don't know how many members were in the meeting in the first place and how many just got the email "Wanna ban AI? Vote now!"

Was that actually the subject of the email? If so that's nuts.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#28

Post by Aachen »

boramalper wrote: post #26
Aachen wrote: post #16

I'm a member of Codeberg and was allowed to vote on these amendments. There was the annual assembly meeting before the ballots were sent by email. Each proposal had a short presentation and a few minutes of Q&A. It wasn't a discussion (the text was final at this point), it was just to ask for clarifications. In the meeting I asked about the server load that they mentioned in their presentation, but misphrased it and…

> I also don't know how many members were in the meeting in the first place and how many just got the email "Wanna ban AI? Vote now!" Was that actually the subject of the email? If so that's nuts.

Sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that was literal. I just assume that's how most people read the proposal. Looking it up, the email was:

> Subject: New poll on polls.codeberg.org

> A new poll has been created on polls.codeberg.org:

> Poll Question:

> Disallow vibe-coded projects (Terms of Use amendment) Do you agree to the changes from the Pull Request https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253/files being accepted?

> Plese vote with token [my_vote_token] here: https://...

> This vote is completely anonymous, voting slips are not stored, only a counter is incremented, your token is not associated with you or your IP address in any way and neither this mail nor your token when voting will be written to any log file.

> [some more info about how to use your token]

The voting URL is disabled now (or at least it currently shows me a blank page) but I remember it quoting the proposed amendment text and you could click agree, disagree, or abstain

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#30

Post by boramalper »

Aachen wrote: post #28
boramalper wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also don't know how many members were in the meeting in the first place and how many just got the email "Wanna ban AI? Vote now!" Was that actually the subject of the email? If so that's nuts.

Sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that was literal. I just assume that's how most people read the proposal. Looking it up, the email was: > Subject: New poll on polls.codeberg.org > A new poll has been created on polls.codeberg.org: > Poll Question: > Disallow vibe-coded projects (Terms of Use amendment) Do you agree to the changes from the Pull Request https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253/files bei…

Ah okay, and no problem!
Post reply on HN