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

We need a federation of forges

blog.tangled.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 424 posts

Re: We need a federation of forges

#101

Post by bix6 »

shimman wrote: post #74
icy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tangled is built entirely in the open: https://tangled.org/tangled.org/core , and our primary goal is to be "permanent software"—i.e. be fully reproducible and entirely self-hostable at minimal cost. VC money is a means to an end. We're both Indian founders in Europe, and grants are nigh on impossible to find (4–12+ months for anything to materialize). VC is quite simply the quickest way for us to build a team, setup…

VC money is absolutely not a means to an end, what is signals is that the company doesn't care about community and only cares about profit. I'm with the OP you're replying to. Taking VC is an albatross that means a large portion of devs will never trust you or use your services (outside of bleeding your funds dry). If this place truly cared about community they should have made a non-profit or some type of NGO, basic…

O yeah cuz the non profit tactic worked so well for OpenAI.

OpenAI and Claude both took VC money and everyone on this message board uses them regardless of ~community~

Not all VCs are scum

Re: We need a federation of forges

#102

Post by the_biot »

icy wrote: post #47
code-blooded wrote: post #36

Tangled is VC sponsored. It doesn't scream stability to me, but rather "we need to grow at all cost". I don't see the appeal. Even though it's federated, when development stops, who will be there to fix bugs and maintain it?

Tangled is built entirely in the open: https://tangled.org/tangled.org/core , and our primary goal is to be "permanent software"—i.e. be fully reproducible and entirely self-hostable at minimal cost. VC money is a means to an end. We're both Indian founders in Europe, and grants are nigh on impossible to find (4–12+ months for anything to materialize). VC is quite simply the quickest way for us to build a team, setup…

Is the code base AI slop? You've published your code as open source, but without an explicit AI policy.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#103

Post by austin-cheney »

mkl wrote: post #77
austin-cheney wrote: post #67

I really don't understand this fear about a single pillar of failure, as people were in tears about the Ghostty thread yesterday. git is not GitHub. git is not HTTP. git is inherently decentralized with no concept of client/server. In git there is only local and a plurality of remotes. That said the solution is simple. Open a secondary, or a new primary, account with another provider and add it to your project's list…

Projects are more than code. This doesn't solve the problem of issue trackers, pull requests, CI, etc.

Pull requests are a core feature of git, the protocol, so I think you probably mean certain PR features more than just PRs.

Issue trackers can be self-hosted from fully mature applications via docker images. You might find something here: https://selfh.st/apps/

CI is typically actioned from a configuration file in your repository to a CI SAAS solution, which could be anything. Travis CI was popular for a long time. When I was big into CI SAAS my favorite was Semaphore CI.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#104

Post by tao_oat »

NetOpWibby wrote: post #40

Last time I tried Tangled they had no concept of private repos. That’s the only thing keeping me on GitHub (oh, and my massive likes collection, I use those as bookmarks). I’m self-hosting with cgit, maybe I could move my private repos to SourceHut? Idk.

There's an AT protocol working group for private data: https://atproto.wiki/en/working-groups/private-data

But you're right, the protocol doesn't currently support this.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#105

Post by 999900000999 »

You will never get around the free rider problem.

If I want to create 100 repos of vibe coded projects every month someone will have to pay for it.

At this point, just give me an honest version of GitHub that tells me what things actually cost. 5$ a repo, and another 1 per gb stored in LFS, cool.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#106

Post by austin-cheney »

tenacious_tuna wrote: post #70
austin-cheney wrote: post #67

I really don't understand this fear about a single pillar of failure, as people were in tears about the Ghostty thread yesterday. git is not GitHub. git is not HTTP. git is inherently decentralized with no concept of client/server. In git there is only local and a plurality of remotes. That said the solution is simple. Open a secondary, or a new primary, account with another provider and add it to your project's list…

> Boom, problem solved Not if your CI depends on github, or if you have specific actions to review things, or if you use SSO because you're an enterprise, or.... Workarounds exist for each of these cases, but they add significant friction. That's not terrible if you're one person, but if you're an org? big problem.

Most enterprises self host for all those critical things so they aren't blocked by third party service interruptions. SLAs might refund some money, but they won't recover the lost time.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#107

Post by PurpleRamen »

ghc wrote: post #4

Is there really nothing like BitTorrent for git, or have we just not heard about it because of GitHub's network effects? It feels like this problem was solved long ago for binaries.

Git is already distributed by itself. The management-part is what's missing (mergerequests, permissions, issues..), and it's disputable whether this is really necessary, or just a nice to have.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#108

Post by icy »

999900000999 wrote: post #105

You will never get around the free rider problem. If I want to create 100 repos of vibe coded projects every month someone will have to pay for it. At this point, just give me an honest version of GitHub that tells me what things actually cost. 5$ a repo, and another 1 per gb stored in LFS, cool.

The cool thing is you can just host your own knot then. Host repos of whatever size you want.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#109

Post by tensegrist »

icy wrote: post #11
ghc wrote: post #4

Is there really nothing like BitTorrent for git, or have we just not heard about it because of GitHub's network effects? It feels like this problem was solved long ago for binaries.

There is! https://radicle.dev :)

the fact that you, as the creator of a "competitor", post this as-is without a "At $co, we…" run-on is a good look

Re: We need a federation of forges

#110

Post by colesantiago »

icy wrote: post #89
colesantiago wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a project is funded by these VCs I question: Why does it need VCs? Why not company and corporate sponsorship like Ladybird? Why should we spend our time on a developer tool that would be enshittified down the line when VCs expect 10x returns?

> Why does it need VCs? Why not company and corporate sponsorship like Ladybird? You talk about corporate sponsorship like that's trivial to find. Trust me when I say we spent over half a year chasing down grants/sponsorships only to be met with closed doors, extremely long wait times for pennies. We'd also be required to keep our day jobs—which means less focus on Tangled dev, and ultimately very slow progress overa…

Sure Tailscale is an excellent one. For now at least. It is also not open source and also has a paid product.

Perhaps maybe in a few years time, Tangled Enterprise would be available to compete with GitHub Enterprise and that is where the switch over happens for companies who want to move over from GitHub to Tangled.

I don’t know because somehow Tangled would need to make money somehow?

I hope Tangled becomes profitable enough to withstand enshittification, because more and more funding rounds and not meeting targets means giving up control and facing a repeat of what happened at Bluesky.

Post reply on HN