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

Codeberg – Fast open source alternative to GitHub

codeberg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 225 posts

Re: Codeberg – Fast open source alternative to GitHub

#111

Post by fauigerzigerk »

haleudo wrote: post #98
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's fortunate that sometimes people refuse to build big tents and instead push for a better world. In general I prefer if people keep their politics out of IT infrastructure. We don't all agree on what makes the world better and what makes it worse. That said, I don't have a problem with this particular project. It's absolutely fine to create a git hosting solution specifically for open source as open source is its…

> In general I prefer if people keep their politics out of IT infrastructure. Fine, then go somewhere else and don't use Codeberg. Your criticism is part of bringing politics into this. It's about freedom and choice. You have the choice to go somewhere else, nobody is forcing you.

Quoting myself: "That said, I don't have a problem with this particular project. It's absolutely fine to create a git hosting solution specifically for open source..."

Re: Codeberg – Fast open source alternative to GitHub

#112

Post by jolheiser »

Kwpolska wrote: post #9

What makes it fast, and is GitHub not fast enough? Why is their UI (which is Forgejo, fork of Gitea) such a blatant clone of GitHub’s?

We (Gitea) inherited the UI from Gogs, and iirc the UI choice was partially because Gogs was a one man show and partially because a familiar interface eases transition from GitHub.

We have talked about UI refreshes over the years, but it would be a huge undertaking while also keeping up with the rapid iteration.

Re: Codeberg – Fast open source alternative to GitHub

#113

Post by kotatsuyaki »

RamblingCTO wrote: post #105
kotatsuyaki wrote: post #67

I’m trying to migrate my personal repos from GitHub to Codeberg. The biggest challenge is to find a replacement for GitHub Actions (the free offering is so generous), and my current solution for that is to self-host an instance of Woodpecker CI [1]. I’d like to see even more diversity in Git hosting beyond “let’s all migrate from X to Y”, and for that to happen, Forgejo (the soft fork of Gitea that Codeberg runs) has…

They (Gitea) introduced actions. It is already included in the current releases, but codeberg might just not activate it. It works quite good, I actually wrote a gitea action already ("gitea-release-drafter").

Glad to see new options. I wonder if Codeberg is going to enable actions, given that they’ve already setup an experimental instance of Woodpecker that can be requested [1] on a per-user basis.

[1]: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg-CI/request-access

Re: Codeberg – Fast open source alternative to GitHub

#114

Post by PicassoCTs »

allioeddie wrote: post #47
commoner wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Services don't need to handle every single use case to be viable alternatives. GitHub does host proprietary software, but it is most well known for being a place to collaborate on free and open source software. Codeberg addresses this primary use case in a more focused way than GitHub intends to, and because of this, Codeberg is an excellent alternative to GitHub.

This sort of myopic, self-important, holier-than-thou perspective is why the open source community is so rarely successful in anything it tries to do for itself. Whatever you think Github's most known or most useful featureset is, the fact of the matter is it dominates because they don't draw philosophical lines in the sand and exclude people as a result. It's a big tent, all are welcome, and as a result, it has near…

Every animal is welcome in the "yourTheSausage"-stables, as long as its willing to put in free work and pulls that AI plow.

Re: Codeberg – Fast open source alternative to GitHub

#115

Post by jraph »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #107
jraph wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In general I prefer if people keep their politics out of IT infrastructure You need to make choices that will have tradeoffs anyway. Unless you find a consensual choice, which is very rare, you might be picking mainstream ones, which are not neutral. Neutrality does not exist. For instance, for any software you need to choose, it will be either proprietary or open source. Both have political implications.

I agree that some choices cannot be avoided, but others can and should be avoided. In my opinion, we should avoid linking the use of IT infrastructures to political issues such as systems of government, wars, climate change, gender identity, religion or anything else that is unrelated to the technical aspects of that infrastructure. Open source licences themselves are a good example of how I think it should be done.…

What makes IT infrastructures special compared to anything else that we should avoid political matters?

For me they are critical and omnipresent. So crucial, in fact, that they are somewhat at the center of political matters nowadays. They are probably a core part of many policies.

And I believe the way they are done cannot avoid politics.

Trying hard to project into myself into your perspective, I'm trying to compare them to roads, which are infrastructure too. You could say they should be neutral and let anybody use them without discrimination...

... but they are not neutral. The way they are built consume more or less energy, have various environmental implications, they more or less encourage usage of cars or trains or planes depending on how the network is organized, how they are maintained, which facilities are nearby roads… And many roads are not very usable without cars so they actually discriminate.

I believe the same kind of things apply to IT infrastructure. Most choices will have political implications and therefore you'd actually be careful when designing them.

Now, regardless of whether IT infrastructure can be kept neutral (which I don't think is possible), I actually think that we should not and that we'd better work hard to leverage, and design them the best we can to limit our environmental footprint (for instance).

Re: Codeberg – Fast open source alternative to GitHub

#116

Post by hnarn »

commoner wrote: post #42
Entinel wrote: post #19

> Our mission is to support the creation and development of Free Software; therefore we only allow repos licensed under an OSI/FSF-approved license. For more details see Licensing article. However, we sometimes tolerate repositories that aren't perfectly licensed and focus on spreading awareness on the topic of improper FLOSS licensing and its issues. If you aren't doing FOSS software and aren't "tolerated" you aren'…

Services don't need to handle every single use case to be viable alternatives. GitHub does host proprietary software, but it is most well known for being a place to collaborate on free and open source software. Codeberg addresses this primary use case in a more focused way than GitHub intends to, and because of this, Codeberg is an excellent alternative to GitHub.

You can both be right. The title as it stands describes Codeberg as a "Fast Open Source Alternative to GitHub" and I'd agree that it's a confusing title to say the least.

What we're really talking about here is a free-as-in-beer SaaS service that primarily caters to open source software repositories. This isn't clear in the title, because "Open Source" in this context can be read both as the back-end itself being open source (which it is), or more correctly -- but much less obviously -- that it's an alternative for open source repositories compared to GitHub.

Codeberg uses Forgejo[1] which in turn is a soft fork of Gitea[2], and anyone can use these two projects to self-host their proprietary codebase -- but the title for this post in no way makes it clear what Codeberg actually is.

One could literally just take the first thing you see on their website and it would be a much better description:

> Codeberg is a collaboration platform and Git hosting for free and open source software, content and projects.

[1]: https://forgejo.org/

[2]: https://github.com/Codeberg-org/gitea

Re: Codeberg – Fast open source alternative to GitHub

#117

Post by jwmcq »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #104
jwmcq wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I prefer if people keep their politics out of IT infrastructure. I find it interesting that people only ever say this when talking about free software initiatives. Nobody moans about software getting 'political' when talking about closed-source companies enforcing intellectual property laws that were literally written by politicians .

> I prefer if people keep their politics out of IT infrastructure. >> I find it interesting that people only ever say this when talking about free software initiatives. Nobody moans about software getting 'political' when talking about closed-source companies enforcing intellectual property laws that were literally written by politicians. I'm sorry, but I find your extremely selective quoting offensive. You are disto…

If your 'general principle' doesn't apply to the most important and popular software in the world (open source) then perhaps it is not very general, and not very principled.

Re: Codeberg – Fast open source alternative to GitHub

#118

Post by hnarn »

djha-skin wrote: post #102
Entinel wrote: post #19

> Our mission is to support the creation and development of Free Software; therefore we only allow repos licensed under an OSI/FSF-approved license. For more details see Licensing article. However, we sometimes tolerate repositories that aren't perfectly licensed and focus on spreading awareness on the topic of improper FLOSS licensing and its issues. If you aren't doing FOSS software and aren't "tolerated" you aren'…

Codeberg runs on Forjego, the soft fork of Gitea. If you don't like the restrictions of Codeberg, running your own copy of it is super easy and relatively cheap. Further, they are working on a fediverse feature allowing PRs between instances. If this happens, your individual instance can PR with Codeberg, but still have private repos. I'm excited about this.

It's "Forgejo" (as in a forge), not "Forjego". I personally don't think it's a great name as this confusion perhaps proves. Anyway, I had no idea about the plans to interface with ActivityPub, that is really cool.

Re: Codeberg – Fast open source alternative to GitHub

#119

Post by usea »

Entinel wrote: post #19

> Our mission is to support the creation and development of Free Software; therefore we only allow repos licensed under an OSI/FSF-approved license. For more details see Licensing article. However, we sometimes tolerate repositories that aren't perfectly licensed and focus on spreading awareness on the topic of improper FLOSS licensing and its issues. If you aren't doing FOSS software and aren't "tolerated" you aren'…

Not even public domain or CC0 is allowed. Your license absolutely must restrict the rights of others to be permissible.

Re: Codeberg – Fast open source alternative to GitHub

#120

Post by Matl »

Entinel wrote: post #19

> Our mission is to support the creation and development of Free Software; therefore we only allow repos licensed under an OSI/FSF-approved license. For more details see Licensing article. However, we sometimes tolerate repositories that aren't perfectly licensed and focus on spreading awareness on the topic of improper FLOSS licensing and its issues. If you aren't doing FOSS software and aren't "tolerated" you aren'…

I hate how on Hacker News it's always the corporate, proprietary, market that is cast as the underdog. You know the one who get all the press coverage and has VC money behind it.
Post reply on HN