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

Before GitHub

lucumr.pocoo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 255 posts

Re: Before GitHub

#181

Post by progval »

zoobab wrote: post #152
IshKebab wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is GitHub spends on the order of $100m/year on providing free CI. Nobody else can compete with that. It's possible they could make it shit enough that a large number of projects will say "screw this we'll just pay for CI", but people really like free (and easy!) things so I think we are a long way from that point.

"Nobody else can compete with that" My laptop is on all the time, make a WASM slave and thousands of developers can give their CPU/Memory/Disk for build slaves. Like bitcoin mining, there could be some competition between 3 parallel builds to pick the winner if the output is the same.

> make a WASM slave and thousands of developers can give their CPU/Memory/Disk for build slaves

WASM isn't a magic bullet for sandboxing. CI environments assume a full Linux. So you need to either ran a VM (with the attack surface that implies) or a write an x86 emulator in WASM (which would be very slow).

You also need anti-abuse to stop bitcoin miners from using your system. GitHub probably have full-time employees working on it.

> Like bitcoin mining, there could be some competition between 3 parallel builds to pick the winner if the output is the same.

It's a lot more complicated because many builds are not deterministic, you need to store artefacts, build secrets, etc.

Companies like golem.network or iex.ec have been working on this problem for a decade and they are still not easy to use.

Re: Before GitHub

#182

Post by l72 »

vintermann wrote: post #176
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It can still change, I hate the notion that because Git is so culturally embedded we couldn’t ever switch. Fossil makes it super easy to switch and the workflow is actually easier coming from Git. I was exposed to Mercurial before Git and I stubbornly tried to advocate for it over Git for a while. BitBucket, at the time, gave Github a good run for their money and had great Mercurial support and was what I preferred…

My first distributed VCS was Tom Lord's Arch. I may have started early, but it took me a long time to understand distributed version control, thanks in no small part to Tom Lord, lol. GNU.

Same, then moved to bazaar which was really easy and nice.

Of course moved on to git but I still think bazaar did many things better.

Re: Before GitHub

#183

Post by pjmlp »

wps wrote: post #21

I am still so salty that Git won out for the average project over Fossil. Sure Git has some performance advantages for massive codebases like the Linux Kernel, but the vast majority of projects will never run into performance limits from their VCS. Fossil’s internal tools (wiki, forum, tickets , etc) are just so useful to have versioned with your code in one file. I use Fossil for all my freelance work and it so easi…

For me it was Mercurial, but yeah, being done by Linus and adopted in the Linux kernel was the killer feature for Git's adoption.

If Git was created by a random dude, it would never taken off.

Re: Before GitHub

#184

Post by [deleted] »

zoobab wrote: post #150

"We Need an Archive" Before we had FTP, which made easy to mirror stuff with "lftp mirror -p". HTML is not good for archiving. We have to rethink those protocols so that mirroring is made easy, and "git clone" is not an answer sorry.

[deleted]

Re: Before GitHub

#185

Post by coldpie »

wps wrote: post #21

I am still so salty that Git won out for the average project over Fossil. Sure Git has some performance advantages for massive codebases like the Linux Kernel, but the vast majority of projects will never run into performance limits from their VCS. Fossil’s internal tools (wiki, forum, tickets , etc) are just so useful to have versioned with your code in one file. I use Fossil for all my freelance work and it so easi…

> I use Fossil for all my freelance work and it so easily allows me to get right back into the context of a project, niche details and agreements had with a client, etc. No need to pollute the codebase or gather together a million emails or notetaking software just to get back up to speed.

Hmm that's interesting to hear. I'm starting up a very small business this year (one guy selling shit at a craft fair booth) and I'm using plaintext accounting files in a Git repo for it. I wonder if Fossil could keep me from re-inventing some note taking and record keeping approaches. I'll have to look into what it can do.

Re: Before GitHub

#186

Post by bluedino »

3form wrote: post #126
alastairp wrote: post #25

> What GitHub Gave Us To me one of the clear things that GitHub gave us was a structure around a person rather than a project. To me it felt liberating to quickly create a repository attached to my name than it was to go through the (what felt to me) very serious process of coming up with a project name and reserving it on sourceforge just to get a cvs or svn repository (along with website, mailing lists, issue track…

>To me it felt liberating to quickly create a repository attached to my name If I remember correctly, it was also one of the few places sticking to the now-standard passing of the parameters via path rather than the '?' URL query part. It might not seem like much now, but then the ease and simple beauty of having just github.com/user/repo - not only for web access but also cloning - was definitely some freshness fact…

That was just a byproduct of how Rails did routing based on the URL

Re: Before GitHub

#187

Post by bluedino »

pistoriusp wrote: post #3

This got me thinking about code.google.com, I can't believe Google dropped the ball that hard.

Has Google ever done a good job with anything, other than search? I don't want to count YouTube since they bought it, but least they haven't ruined it...

Re: Before GitHub

#188

Post by hecifato »

hdrz wrote: post #129
ragelink wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny timing — I've been working on a hosted Fossil service to scratch this exact itch. The integrated wiki+forum+tickets+code is killer for small teams, but most people who'd pick Fossil don't actually want to babysit a server. So we host it. Two things I keep coming back to: (1) The "opinionated / small-teams only" critique others have raised in this thread is real, and I think Fossil should own it instead of fight…

You should continue with a name which is related to fossils, fossillab.io, boneyard.dev and so on…

boneyard.dev evokes something dead but that name kinda goes hard

Re: Before GitHub

#189

Post by ramon156 »

I'm going to throw out a really naive solution

Tangled supports hosting your own knots. Why wouldn't the current GitHub CEO choose to support self-hosted "databases". GH infra can protect you from all the traffic (ssh and http spam), while you keep the social aspect.

I don't need ~100 extra features, I need a reliable platform. If that means I need to self-host the storage, runners, etc. fine.

Re: Before GitHub

#190

Post by colechristensen »

ramon156 wrote: post #189

I'm going to throw out a really naive solution Tangled supports hosting your own knots. Why wouldn't the current GitHub CEO choose to support self-hosted "databases". GH infra can protect you from all the traffic (ssh and http spam), while you keep the social aspect. I don't need ~100 extra features, I need a reliable platform. If that means I need to self-host the storage, runners, etc. fine.

GitHub has offered an on prem enterprise option for a very long time
Post reply on HN