21–30 of 225 posts
> 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'…
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?
> such a blatant clone of GitHub’s? I'm guessing for the same reason all cars have the steering wheel and turn signal switch in roughly the same place.
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?
I'm guessing the Golang implementation and probably a smaller team working on the frontend? GitHub is perceptibly slower than Codeberg, just open 2 tab side by side and try them out.
Of course, Codeberg is not saying GitHub sells your data, but it seems to imply someone is selling your data if you don't use Codeberg and instead use other services. Is there any backing for this? Who sells your data if you use GitHub that won't sell your data when you use Codeberg?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the "governance" failure? Though I don't use it, GitLab struck me as one of the darlings of how to run an open source company (I love all their public docs), but maybe I'm missing something?
Gitlab is "open-core", not open source.
> No tracking. Your data is not for sale. Of course, Codeberg is not saying GitHub sells your data, but it seems to imply someone is selling your data if you don't use Codeberg and instead use other services. Is there any backing for this? Who sells your data if you use GitHub that won't sell your data when you use Codeberg?
About 6 months ago, Codeberg removed the repository for the Wikiless project, and IIRC did not offer any explanation to the developer for about 2 weeks. The reason was a Wikimedia Foundation request. Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33101301
https://web.archive.org/web/20221125051241/https://orenom.fi...
The repo: https://codeberg.org/orenom/wikiless
About 6 months ago, Codeberg removed the repository for the Wikiless project, and IIRC did not offer any explanation to the developer for about 2 weeks. The reason was a Wikimedia Foundation request. Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33101301
I would be very surprised if this was the case - the WMF doesn't prohibit alternative front ends in any way, and it doesn't seem to do anything they'd be upset about (unless it allowed people to evade edit blocks, but that seems incredibly doubtful); if anything, surely they'd welcome a project focused on protecting the privacy of its users?
About 6 months ago, Codeberg removed the repository for the Wikiless project, and IIRC did not offer any explanation to the developer for about 2 weeks. The reason was a Wikimedia Foundation request. Edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33101301
On its own, not harmful. That being said, it ran afoul of the WMFs trademarks and was actively confusing people with regular Mediawiki, which is likely what prompted the takedown. You can read the ins and outs on Wikipedias own page about mirrors and forks, there's an explanation listed there[1].
Codeberg likely complied because if you're weighting a vaguely conspiratorial-minded (the developer of Wikiless is a "feds in the walls" type if it wasn't obvious from the previous paragraph) proxy tool against possibly being shut down since you decided to stand up for an easy trademark violation, the choice is easy.
[0]: I'd like to note that as far as I can tell, no such tooling exists on Wikipedia, nor does the WMF employ the usual culprit (ad networks) of that kind of nonsense.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/VW...