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

Evaluating new software forges

notgull.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 138 posts

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#11

Post by emptysongglass »

saurik wrote: post #2

I was hoping for an evaluation of Radicle--the only forge that seemed to be doing something exciting and "new", and one I haven't had the time to really analyze yet--but... no such luck :(.

I'm not sure you'd want any forge evaluated by this author: they're extremely caustic, negative, and critical. Jaded people in tech like this I just try and avoid, especially when they come out against unalloyed good tech like containerization. Containers are just namespaces with additions. They've allowed us to narrow the gap of capability between the big three OSes, even if the other two need to virtualize Linux to do so.

There's also nothing wrong with LLMs. How you choose to integrate them into your life or forge is a choice but at the end of the day they're just another tool in the toolbelt. Pick what you want or need and leave the rest. I'm not forced to use Copilot but I appreciate it when I need it.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#12

Post by isilofi »

Ayesh wrote: post #5

Having tried GitHub, GitLab, Source Hut, Codeberg, and BitBucket (RIP), I think the only serious options are GitHub, GitLab self hosted, and Source Hut. GitHub owned by MSFT aside, and also putting their AI push _also_ aside, GitHub has things like Sponsors, Dependabot, and code scanning that you won't find anywhere else. They sure are luring you into ecosystems that require a huge escape velocity, but GitHub serves…

> Dependabot, and code scanning that you won't find anywhere else.

Gitlab has equivalents you can enable as CI pipelines.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#13

Post by jmclnx »

I just went back to kind of "anonymous ftp" via my gemini site on sdf.org. I find it far easier to maintain. When I make a change, a script packages up the change and sends it to sdf.

My github repositories were changed to point to it. The latest change by Microsoft made me move, I was considering a move when Copilot became a thing. 2FA got me off my butt to finally move.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#14

Post by toastal »

I’ve been moving into a self-hosted direction for a lot of my stuff as a lot of it really wasn’t being used by anyone but myself anyhow. My latest two projects are darcs on my home server using just SSH+Nginx for HTTP with an apply hook that run `nix flake check` & on the server end, a hook that runs `nix build` which not only checks the build, but also has the derivation in Nix store for me to pick up later as that server doubles as a substitutor. Collaboration can still be done via email of patches or DMing a pull request from someone else’s remote repo. It’s crazy how much we’ve been defaulting to tools that are so complicated--especially ones that require accounts to participate & have a social media features tacked on everywhere to cause the sorts of social media anxiety it does everywhere else. When the amount of collaborators is low, self-hosting is hardly a barrier that needs extra scaling.

Weird the author said email was a pain, but last patch I received it was as easy as `himalaya read --raw X | git am` to apply & pointing out that modern email clients do a bad job supporting this seems more damning of those clients than the workflow.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#16

Post by Jgrubb »

sebastianconcpt wrote: post #8

Is not hard for me to see a case being built around the idea of finding value in having code to stay excluded from the surface exposed to AI so it becomes impossible for it to predate it. It's a type of "security" that doesn't find an answer in "better AIs" or "AIs with improved alignment". The value comes out of being safe from the risk that can come out of the humans in control of these AIs. I comes out of staying…

I like this analogy but I guess I see it more like man inventing the knife, so he doesn't have to rip the animal to shreds with his bare hands anymore.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#18

Post by jckahn »

jmclnx wrote: post #13

I just went back to kind of "anonymous ftp" via my gemini site on sdf.org. I find it far easier to maintain. When I make a change, a script packages up the change and sends it to sdf. My github repositories were changed to point to it. The latest change by Microsoft made me move, I was considering a move when Copilot became a thing. 2FA got me off my butt to finally move.

What about requiring 2FA made you leave?

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#19

Post by LoganDark »

I also checked out SourceHut, but they're unfortunately not compatible with my email provider, and after some discussion with Drew (the founder) it started to sound like I'm not welcome unless I bring a real legal name and human identity. I understand how that type of collaboration can be valued and desired, but it excludes me, so I didn't pursue SourceHut any further. Something to think about if you ever consider it - no pseudonyms, no custom emails, use your real name and personal email address, or you'll be actively rejected by their software.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#20

Post by steezeburger »

btreecat wrote: post #9

I think it's time we collectively mature past the point where taking unsubstantiated pot-shots at tools we don't "love" is seen as a value add to commentary. In this case calling k8s a "nightmare" is a strong red flag akin to the mantra of "java is slow". It lacks the nuance of hands on XP and reeks of rules of thumb miss applied to the point of catchphrases.

Sad to see this down voted. I agree. They also sound insufferable. Maybe it's just their writing style, trying to be inflammatory for engagement, but they are not someone I would want to work with.
Post reply on HN