111–120 of 641 posts
One thing that's really nice about codeberg is how fast the pages load. Browsing GitHub often feels very sluggish. Obviously there's a difference in scale there, but I hope codeberg can keep being fast.
Night and day compared to something like Linear.
Right now github is great for discovering and tracking projects, reflecting growth via the star and fork system (although a bit broken in the last few years).
If a federated layer is applied to these github alternatives, you could have an account in Codeberg, and be able to track lots of projects wherever people want to host them. Right now, I see a lot of forgejo servers, but I don't want to register in all of them.
LLMs are useful, but AI is itself a marketing term that has begun to lose its luster. It’s rapidly becoming an annoying or trendy label, not a cutting edge one. I guarantee that in ~24 months, most AI features will still remain in some form or another on most apps, but the marketing language of AI-first will have evaporated entirely.
Where have you been the last 15 years? However, I agree with your prediction. Coke making AI advertisements may have had cache a couple years ago, but now would be a doofus move.
To be fair this has more to do with Github Actions than Github, which from the beginning was never really going to rival any professional solution. The people at Zig should use proper CI tools and not something that a big service provider is offering as an afterthought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is surprising. It is the opposite for me. $ time curl -L 'https://codeberg.org/' real 0m3.063s user 0m0.060s sys 0m0.044s $ time curl -L 'https://github.com/' real 0m1.357s user 0m0.077s sys 0m0.096s
A better benchmark is done through the web browser inspector (network tab or performance tab). In the network tab I got (cache disabled) Github 158 requests 15.56 MB (11.28 MB transferred) Finish in 8.39s Dom loaded in 2.46s Load 6.95s Codeberg 9 requests 1.94 MB (533.85 KB transferred) Finish in 3.58s Dom loaded in 3.21s Load 3.31s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who would have an incentive to spend resources That's not how threat analysis works. That's a conspiracy theory. You need to consider the difficulty of achieving it. Otherwise I could start speculating which large NAS provider is trying to DDoS me, when in fact it's a script kiddie. As for who would have the most incentives? Unscrupulous AI scrapers. Every unprotected site experiences a flood of AI scrapers/bots.
Actually I think that's roughly how threat analysis works though.
For each potential adversary, you list the risk strategy; that's threat analysis 101.
E.g. you have a locked door, some valuables, and your opponent is the state-level. Risk strategy: ignore, no door you can afford will be able to stop a state-level actor.
IMHO, the main advantage of github is that it is an ecosystem. This is a well-thought-out Swiss knife: a pioneering (but no longer new) PR system, convenient issues, as well as a well-formed CI system with many developed actions and free runners. In addition, it is best to use code navigation simply in a web browser. You write code, and almost everything works effortlessly. Having a sponsorship system is also great,…
Man :| no. I genuinely understand the convenience of using Actions, but it's a horrible product.
I totally agree, Microsoft is ruining everything with AI, like all Microsoft product have been on decline for years even before the LLM era, and now they are on an even steeper decline. it makes me sad to see that github is now going through the same shit, and people are using other random half-ass alternatives, it’s not easy to keep track of your favourite open-source projects across many source forgeries. we need s…
IMHO, the main advantage of github is that it is an ecosystem. This is a well-thought-out Swiss knife: a pioneering (but no longer new) PR system, convenient issues, as well as a well-formed CI system with many developed actions and free runners. In addition, it is best to use code navigation simply in a web browser. You write code, and almost everything works effortlessly. Having a sponsorship system is also great,…
Things like number of stars on a repository, number of forks, number of issues answered, number of followers for an account. All these things are powerful indicators of quality, and like it or not are now part of modern software engineering. Developers are more likely to use a repo that has more stars than its alternatives.
I know that the code should speak for itself and one should audit their dependencies and not depend on Github stars, but in practice this is not what happens, we rely on the community.
IMHO, the main advantage of github is that it is an ecosystem. This is a well-thought-out Swiss knife: a pioneering (but no longer new) PR system, convenient issues, as well as a well-formed CI system with many developed actions and free runners. In addition, it is best to use code navigation simply in a web browser. You write code, and almost everything works effortlessly. Having a sponsorship system is also great,…
IMHO the vanilla Github UI sucks for code browsing since it's incredibly slow, and the search is also useless (the integrated web-vscode works much better - e.g. press '.' inside a Github project).
> as well as a well-formed CI system with many developed actions and free runners
The only good thing about the Github CI system are the free runners (including free Mac runners), for everything else it's objectively worse than the alternatives (like Gitlab CI).