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

Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

jorijn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 380 posts

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#161

Post by import »

lloydatkinson wrote: post #90
import wrote: post #14

I’ve moved to self hosted gitea a year ago running in my homelab and not publicly accessible. No https, registrations disabled and repos are not public. I’m thinking about making public instance and use it with https, but minimize the attack surface, any recommendations especially about gitea/forgejo?

When I adopted Foregjo I did so because I didn't like the sound of some political arguments across threads about some alleged security issues Foregjo raised with Gitea who allegedly ignored them. What keeps you using Gitea? I'm wondering if I should try it over Foregejo now.

Nothing special. I am aware of the discussions for so long. I mostly spend my time making music with modular synths and migration to forgejo is not a priority right now, I don’t want to touch the setup. If you’re on forgejo I don’t think there’s any reason to try the gitea.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#163

Post by bbor »

l5870uoo9y wrote: post #152

> The CTO publicly apologised and said capacity needs to scale 30x to keep up with AI-driven load. I hope they don't start charging for regular use of GitHub, but when I see how some of the vibe coders make thousands of commits a day, I'm becoming more and more skeptical. Would be a real shame if we can't share and cooperate on code for free.

I feel like LLMs will help solve this problem they've created, TBH -- any human expert can tell in seconds when a repo has this problem, so it should be doable by a system that's tweaked over. The tricky part is writing a legal agreement that lets them apply vibe quotas!

This is what Anthropic is already doing with CC, and tbh GitHub and GitLab are probably doing the same. The cost is some hate from devs on Twitter and random small subreddits ofc, but I bet that's well worth it!

OTOH, it does kinda blow my mind how often I see people (on /r/vibecoding and elsewhere) paying for a $200/mo subscription to produce what amount to hobby projects and toy sites. I've been known to make some silly money decisions when I can afford it, but this feels different.

I guess it's a $2400 annual subscription to a service providing Meaning and Purpose? If you're around 40 and realizing that you'll never be rich or famous, this might actually affordable compared to the alternatives!

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#164

Post by onesandofgrain »

kstrauser wrote: post #148
onesandofgrain wrote: post #128

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.

gitea runs on github u mean the source or the hosting?

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#165

Post by thisislife2 »

bayindirh wrote: post #11
giancarlostoro wrote: post #2

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".

I completely share your sentiment about feeling irked about open source code being used to train commercial AI models. However, I think the battle is already lost - the nature of copyright and open source code philosophy (currently) means that there isn't any real way of preventing your code being used to train AI. Look at the legal precedents being set in courts where many of the BigTechs have actually pirated copyrighted media to train their AI, and the court has said "that's acceptable". (Ofcourse, the actual act of piracy - like Facebook did by downloading copyrighted material through torrents - may not be legal, but the courts may be lenient here too as there seems to be an undercurrent of government approval to do anything to win the "AI Race").

And, even if you move your repository somewhere else, can you really prevent anyone from uploading it to Github? To do so, you may have to create your open source license.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#166

Post by locknitpicker »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #2

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…

> Everyone seems to be leaving GitHub, and forgetting the entire spirit of what git is in my eyes.

And here lies your misconception: services such as GitHub are really not about git. That's a red herring. It's not about tooling either. People use services such as GitHub because of things like issue management, access control, release management, project pages, and CICD integration. You click on a button and you create a repository that's automatically added to your organization, with all access controls sorted out. You click on a button and you grant read access to someone. You click on a button and you onboard a whole team.

Underneath it all, it's completely irrelevant if you are even using Git. Some people even use github's CLI interface instead. Does it matter if it's git or not? Do you even care?

I have personal projects hosted and mirrored across GitHub, Gitlab, and BitBucket. That works, but only as far as backups are concerned. Even in projects that onboarded onto a third party CICD system, git is really not the reason for picking one service over another.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#167

Post by rirze »

satvikpendem wrote: post #83

I've also heard of Tangled [0] which is decentralized and built on the AT Protocol like Bluesky but also has some genuinely useful features that GitHub has been dragging its heels over in implementing, like PR stacking, such that entire companies have sprung up to add that feature in GitHub. Has anyone tried this? [0] https://tangled.org/

It's too decentralized for my taste IMO.

I like using radicle.xyz instead.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#168

Post by locknitpicker »

bayindirh wrote: post #11
giancarlostoro wrote: post #2

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".

> (...) I'm also remembering how GitHub used "all open repositories" to train their first Copilot without telling anyone.

This is a silly opinion to hold, isn't it? I mean, you release projects under a license with the express purpose of freely distributing your code among anyone in the world that may have any interest whatsoever, and even allow they themselves to share it with anyone they feel fit. But you are somehow outraged if people actually use said code?

Please make it make sense.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#169

Post by dylan604 »

locknitpicker wrote: post #168
bayindirh wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

> (...) I'm also remembering how GitHub used "all open repositories" to train their first Copilot without telling anyone. This is a silly opinion to hold, isn't it? I mean, you release projects under a license with the express purpose of freely distributing your code among anyone in the world that may have any interest whatsoever, and even allow they themselves to share it with anyone they feel fit. But you are someh…

Because there's no way the code is distributed properly according to any of the OSS licenses. In fact, it claims authorship with nonsense bylines saying the LLM wrote it.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#170

Post by locknitpicker »

MrFurious wrote: post #13
gchamonlive wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but GitHub is more than just git. The most important aspect of the platform that everybody seems to forget is the social component and how easy it made to create a persistent, off-site repository and collaborate across repos.

The "social component" is a big problem in actual FOSS.

> The "social component" is a big problem in actual FOSS.

You're confusing things. The "social component" refers to people interacting with each other. Such as two developers working on a bug or a feature. Or a tester reporting a bug.

This is a big part of actual professional software development work.

Post reply on HN