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

191–200 of 617 posts

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#191

Post by SpecialistK »

senderista wrote: post #179
imtringued wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That means the vast majority of people are born as fascists and only the mastodonians are the ones going against the fascist nature of this world. Not sure how that is supposed to help the anti-fascist cause.

Should have added a sarcasm tag.

You almost had me there for a second, but I picked up on it before the downvoters did.

I think it's an unfortunate reality whenever you have a network which is popularized by a boycott of other services' actions or values. Those who care the most or are the most affected by the actions are the most likely to leave and be very vocal in the new space, so the new space becomes "theirs." Meanwhile, the original space(s) still keep a lot of the old users who are supportive, ignorant, or ambivalent, so both places become a little more echoed and extreme.

When Reddit ditched 3rd party clients and generally enshittified, I didn't jump ship to Lemmy. I reinstalled an RSS reader and made HN one of the feeds.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#192

Post by eviks »

adamddev1 wrote: post #189
eviks wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people using LLMs are using up disproportionately huge hosting resources So block huge resource use? What if people use LLMs with disproportionately tiny resource use?

Making a principled ban against LLM would seem to allow for more freedom and flexibility with usage limits. People who are creating more by hand would still be allowed to have more breathing room. With a hard limit of resources everyone would be more restricted. That's also a solution, but it's just a totally different approach. The LLM ban could help to allow for freedom without the resources getting overwhelmed.

> principled ban against LLM

So was it about high resource use, or a principle?

> People who are creating more by hand would still be allowed to have more breathing room.

What about the breathing of people creating by hand with a sprinkle of an LLM?

> but it's just a totally different approach.

Indeed, a better one where you manage directly the issue you claim to care about

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#193

Post by soapdog »

eviks wrote: post #188
SiempreViernes wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main problem is that so many LLM users are selfish bastards and they won't respect the spirit of such rules and will only stop when the hard disk quotas force them to. So now your solution entails lowering the quota for everybody because allowing in LLyou must assume eve

How does adding a few words to TOS stop "selfish bastards"?

Gives them a line to justify removing projects in the future if they are caught violating the ToS.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#194

Post by doc_ick »

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #186
boramalper wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems that what they are saying is: In a free hosting platform where we share all the resources, it's not fair that some people using LLMs are using up disproportionately huge hosting resources to handle the unnaturally large amounts of resources they can churn out with these tools. Then instead of addressing the excessive resource usage problem indirectly via banning AI-assisted apps, they could've addressed it…

[flagged]

In the ai-article op did say they’d do exactly that. Though it is surprising they left GitHub due to ““enshittification” of the platform under Microsoft’s ownership”, when it’s likely GitHub is using similar ai practices the op is and matches their exact ai usage.

Citing the op themselves: “ an alarming number of self-described AI experts whose expertise appeared to consist entirely of having a ChatGPT or Claude subscription and the willingness to write about it in seventeen-paragraph posts.”

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#195

Post by 710dev »

hespejo wrote: post #145
HelloNurse wrote: post #139

> It seems like many ‘vibe coders’ don’t realize that they don’t actually have a community around them. This is not about demanding a community, as the article argues about at great length: it's only a polite way to say that many ‘vibe coders’ are annoying, negative net value assholes. Community would ensure that they are not aberrant lone wolves.

yes, but as freedom of expression allows 'assholes' to say whatever they want, free software also allows 'assholes' to develop whatever they want - and limiting it while position itself as the lighthouse of freedom makes Codeberg people the actual assholes

[dead]

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#196

Post by jrflowers »

TLDR; ~1900 words about how they wish Codeberg spent their time and money supporting crypto projects and how they were owed a warning as a free user that anybody was even considering thinking about rules about how they spend time and money on supporting crypto projects

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#197

Post by zem »

nozzlegear wrote: post #90
throwaway89201 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is LARPing an Eingetragener Verein , they're just being one, and the law requires them to have a board and presidium. As they got hundreds of votes on the issue, that means tens of thousands of euros in membership contributions. It doesn't seem unreasonable to want to create a legal entity for that, and an e.V. is easier to set up in the beginning (although it can lead to a lot of drama later).

[flagged]

https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm is a good look at why taking themselves seriously enough to have a formal governance structure is a good thing for a healthy organisation of any sort.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#198

Post by whateverboat »

adamddev1 wrote: post #132

> In addition, Codeberg conflates “having a community” with “being legitimate software worth hosting” I don't think this is a fair summary. I don't see this conflation in Codeberg's blog post. The words in quotation marks don't actually exist in Codeberg's blog post. It seems that what they are saying is: In a free hosting platform where we share all the resources, it's not fair that some people using LLMs are using…

I think you are wrong. A better way is to have a free tier and charge for usage.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#199

Post by baranul »

adamddev1 wrote: post #132

> In addition, Codeberg conflates “having a community” with “being legitimate software worth hosting” I don't think this is a fair summary. I don't see this conflation in Codeberg's blog post. The words in quotation marks don't actually exist in Codeberg's blog post. It seems that what they are saying is: In a free hosting platform where we share all the resources, it's not fair that some people using LLMs are using…

Agree. Providers who don't want to deal with LLM generated code should be respected as part of the free market. Let the market decide which direction is for the better or at least allow for niches that cater to certain audiences.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#200

Post by rmoriz »

imtringued wrote: post #187
chlorion wrote: post #68

A little bit offtopic, but I spend 12 USD a month for a 1 high performance core, 2GB ram, 50GB NVME SSD VPS, and slap nginx and cgit config on there, and host my own git repos. I realize this doesn't work for everyone, and not everyone has the money to spare, but it's really nice to be able to host your own stuff on your own website, and not be tied down to a forge like github or codeberg. Bonus points if you have th…

How is it bonus points if you host at home? My big fear is that a fire, etc deletes my data. You're going to need that extra server whether you like it or not.

tarsnap, restic, borgbackup and others are your friend. When you do your own backup, you know it works (well, you have to).
Post reply on HN