Live data from Hacker News

Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

jorijn.com

141–150 of 380 posts

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#141

I wish it offered a windows binary as well, since the original project gitea from which it was forked, does so. Sometime you need to go where many customers ahem enterprise are. As a developer of an engineering application, windows is the way to go 1st hand. It would have been easier to adopt one more application on the daily driver enviornment. Till than, I am on GitHub only.

Wasn't gitea a fork of forgejo?

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#142
post #85

GitHub Actions is indeed the hard one to replace. I need Windows, Linux, Linux-ARM, macOS ARM, and macOS Intel runners. How do you guys using Forgejo and/or Codeberg do to get a similar matrix, hopefully at a low cost?

Use gitea which has github actions compatibility.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#143
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t wait for federation in Forgejo. With that, there’s honestly no reason not to host your own forge.

The reason will be that not everyone wants to deal wit maintaining a self-hosted box.

it's just a few clicks, starting at 2 bucks a month.

https://www.pikapods.com/apps

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#144

“It’s not because of outages” - goes on to complain about outages. The outages might be due to AI load, but that’s to relevant because your leaving isn’t due to outages. Even though the article is primarily about outages. If you have a problem with your code being scanned for AI training, then write that article. But this article is about outages.

I think a lot of people within the US don't realize how badly US is seen from the outside, especially from "allies".

Illegal tariffs, threatening tariffs, NATO sabotage, threatening invasion, abandoning Ukraine, supporting Russia. It's not just one guy doing this, he has a whole party behind him that could reel him in any second.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#145

I wish it offered a windows binary as well, since the original project gitea from which it was forked, does so. Sometime you need to go where many customers ahem enterprise are. As a developer of an engineering application, windows is the way to go 1st hand. It would have been easier to adopt one more application on the daily driver enviornment. Till than, I am on GitHub only.

Wasn't gitea a fork of forgejo?

The other way around; Forgejo is a fork of Gitea.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#146
post #34

I have also moved my git repositories to a self-hosted NUC. I have not yet bothered with a HTTP frontend to share it with the world, mostly because I don't want to provide AI scrapers with content and don't want to put the work in to block them. It's a shame that all these companies that benefited from open source have poisoned the industry like this

Why would someone gladly provide their work as open source but draw the line at AI reading it and using that knowledge to help more programmers later? It makes no sense to me. I actively want all of my code to be read by AI.

It's kind of breaking the social contract. Licences were drafted, conferences were held, and endless flamewars tried to codify what it means to collaboratively build, distribute, own and use open software.

Then came the model trainers, ignoring the entire discourse, reasoning: "if I can download it, it's mine too use". And then basically selling the resulting tech back to the community.

Not unlike big tech extracting money from open source, but at least the latter usually (somewhat maliciously) complied with the license.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GitHub centralizes 2 things: Authentication, as well as Repository Hosting. Does the code really need to be hosted in a central location like this? (Clearly not, which is why people are leaving GitHub in the first place) But the one part GitHub provides that's genuinely valuable is the social aspect, and when you get a PR from a user named torvalds you can trust that this is in fact Linus. This isn't the case with mo…

Tangled is working on something like that. I believe they are federating on the @protocol. https://tangled.org/

I am very active on bsky and I also use some other ATProto applications like tangled. I think this is the first time I have seen anyone refer to ATProto with an '@'

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#148

Why not Gitea mind me asking? Anything in particular?

Last I looked, Forgejo had more activity and more contributors than Gitea. Also, Forgejo eats its own dogfood: Codeberg runs on it, and hosts it, while Gitea runs on GitHub.

It’s easy to make the case that Forgejo is good enough for public hosting. Gitea probably is, too, but there’s less direct evidence.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#149

Everyone seems to be leaving GitHub, and forgetting the entire spirit of what git is in my eyes. Git was always meant to be decentralized, the problem here is that all the tooling around git was centralized to GitHub because it was a cleaner experience, they scaled nicely, and were properly maintained. I would prefer to still see mirrors on GitHub that are auto-synched because I've seen projects for years either self…

While I'm not forgetting the spirit of what Git is, I'm also remembering how GitHub used "all open repositories" to train their first Copilot without telling anyone. So, no thanks. I'll not be committing any personal code there anymore. And no, I don't care for the social aspects either. Discoverability, stars, and AI bot powered issue bombardment. I'm fine like this. Also, remember, "Open Source is not about You".

What exactly did they train? Copilot is powered by claude, gemini, or ChatGPT these days.

Did they train autocomplete? I mean the code is open source so anyone can scrape it and train it too. I'm kind of glad they did train it because otherwise we'd still be stuck with Apple level AI models right now.

The whole reason we have so many models, including open weight models, that are all competitive with each other is because the data is free and anyone can be training off it. If the goal was to monetize the source code I guess the authors shouldn't make it open source.

Post reply on HN