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

341–350 of 617 posts

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#341

Post by Yokohiii »

simoncion wrote: post #119
Yokohiii wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't look into codeberg really and didn't follow any discussions around it, except some projects fleeing to codeberg. At the first glance it just looks like a github competitor. Recently I tried to create a repo there and nothing pointed out any of the noted restrictions or preferences. I think that is a clear communication problem. Maybe the times are chaotic for them and they need to figure out how to position…

> ... Recently I tried to create a repo there and nothing pointed out any of the noted restrictions or preferences. > I think that is a clear communication problem. ... The following is very clearly posted on their account creation page: [0] By registering for a Codeberg account, you consent to our Privacy Policy [1] and agree to our Terms of Use. [2] You'll note that [2] is the same document linked to by the comment…

Ironically they currently show a huge banner that LLM-generated content is restricted and crypto is no longer allowed.

No one is reading the ToS you know that very well. That you point out basic advice about ToS is satirical.

If a service like this has some surprising limitations for a potential user, it should be clear up front and not hidden in the ToS. Considering my first paragraph, they know that too.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#342

Post by 6031769 »

jasonvorhe wrote: post #94
rmast wrote: post #50

I’d been thinking maybe I should move some projects from GitHub to Codeberg… but this change has a chilling effect since now whoever is making the LLM-generated decision might arbitrarily decide to ban a project based on undefined criteria, like say an em dash in a README — so projects hosted there are not in any way safe from just disappearing. To be honest though, I don’t know what happens when something gets banne…

That project just disappearing from your mind is probably for the better. If it was a company doing such an activist rug pull, you probably wouldn't want to deal with them either. That's probably just intuition telling you something. They could've found so many more legitimate reasons for not wanting pure vibe code on their platform (load, resource constraints, github's uptime since AI assistance became mainstream, e…

It isn't virtue signalling if they actually do it. Then it is just virtuous.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#343

Post by davidgerard »

hibikir wrote: post #316
adamddev1 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Only if you can reasonably separate LLM from non LLM code, which is in no way a solved problem. Even if one agrees with their priorities 100%, it's just asking for non-automated enforcement. It's difficult to execute, and either lead to completely arbitrary enforcement, or a lot of resources being spent in exchange for this freedom you mention. It's just a very hard practical line to try to draw. And let's be real, m…

> Only if you can reasonably separate LLM from non LLM code, which is in no way a solved problem.

It's trivial to detect when someone's coding with a chatbot - they tell you, repeatedly.

Nobody who doesn't code with a chatbot worries that it's hard to tell.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#344

Post by rpdillon »

chmod775 wrote: post #323
zelphirkalt wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you consciously choosing to completely ignore large parts of Codeberg's explanations, regarding the amount of traffic they get from one-man LLM shows, and additionally completely fail to consider the type of organization, that Codeberg is, in order to label this as merely virtue signaling?

> Are you consciously choosing to completely ignore Yes. Let me stop you right there: Yes, absolutely. Whatever they claim their reasons are, it's not my problem. I don't care. The last Codeberg story that popped up here just this week was something about them banning Bitcoin. At that pace you should worry whether you're next. Which is why my advice is: Avoid the headache. Go somewhere else.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that they're instituting rules that they haven't thought about deeply, and they just need to reduce traffic by any means necessary, and they'll use any excuse they can to minimize traffic, whether that's banning LLM code because it could be malicious and has unclear copyright status, or any other reason that they can come up with. The fact that their terms of use don't match up with their blog post about it demonstrates this pretty clearly.

But I don't have a horse in this race. I self-host my code using Fossil.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#346

Post by Hendrikto »

witx wrote: post #310
Hendrikto wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free software is about freedom and liberty. Sure, you can decide to prohibit certain use cases. That is absolutely legal and absolutely okay to do. But it makes you non-neutral and non-free.

What? Free software was never neutral. You think Stallman and Torvalds did what they did because they were neutral? If I dont like the direction an open source project is taking and I fork it. Does make it less free? By your line of thought project should all have MIT licenses because you should not add restrictions

> You think Stallman and Torvalds did what they did because they were neutral?

Is that a joke? Both have made it abundantly clear that yes, this is their stance. Let me quote literally the FIRST freedom RMS put into writing:

> The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.

This is explicitly free and neutral. "for any purpose", no restrictions. Linus endorsed this stance by licensing the kernel under GPLv2, and has repeatedly upheld this view ever since, making the argument again and again that he does not want to restrict what people do with the project.

Even in his famous announcement message, before adopting GPL, Linus said:

> I'm doing a (free) operating system

Then he licensed Linux with his own free license, before adopting GPL.

> Full source must be available (and free)

Freedom is and has always been important to both RMS and Linus.

> If I dont like the direction an open source project is taking and I fork it. Does make it less free?

No. In fact it is one of the freedoms guaranteed by free software.

> By your line of thought project should all have MIT licenses because you should not add restrictions

There are people making that argument, but there are also people arguing that guaranteeing freedom requires more conditions. There is no real consensus on this question.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#347

Post by Hendrikto »

Ekaros wrote: post #304
Hendrikto wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free software is about freedom and liberty. Sure, you can decide to prohibit certain use cases. That is absolutely legal and absolutely okay to do. But it makes you non-neutral and non-free.

Just because you are making free software doesn't mean you should get everything for free.

I have made it VERY clear that I am talking about FREEdom, not the price. I have to assume your comment is in bad faith.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#348

Post by tbrownaw »

squigz wrote: post #295
throwayay4929 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imaging where the world would be if Firefox, when it came out, went deep on the Iraq war? Or if RMS got involved in, I don't know, the Lewinsky affair in the 1990s, and made it a core part of the FSF? We'd all be using WinXP SE and IE6. "The personal is political" is a truly toxic idea that's been corroding nice things since it's inception.

Using RMS as an example of "how to not be political" is uh... interesting.

> Using RMS as an example of "how to not be political" is uh... interesting.

He's known for staying focused on one single issue, which is important for personal reasons unrelated to group affiliations.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#349

Post by rpdillon »

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…

Yeah, the natural solution here is to only offer some amount of hosting for free and then charge for larger amounts of code to host. Those quotas are something that is empirical and observable and can be managed. But instead, they're implementing a rule that is unenforceable because you can't actually validate whether or not the majority of the project was written by an LLM. They just chose a suboptimal path and pissed a bunch of people off in the process, and their terms of service makes this out like some kind of copyright or security issue. It's just silly.

Re: I regret migrating to Codeberg

#350

Post by rpdillon »

baranul wrote: post #199
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.

It's wild to me that nobody is considering enforcement. Part of the reason this is a bad rule is because there's no way to actually validate what is an LLM coded project. And the AI train is not nearly at its destination. Things are going to change dramatically over the next four years. My prediction? This is not going to age well.
Post reply on HN