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

Radicle: Open-Source, Peer-to-Peer, GitHub Alternative

app.radicle.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 299 posts

Re: Radicle: Open-Source, Peer-to-Peer, GitHub Alternative

#201

Post by clemiclemen »

est wrote: post #4

This looks like a fine project for its purpose, but I think git is already open-source and p2p. You don't need sh What's missing in git is code issues, wikis, discussions, github pages and most importantly, a developer profile network. We need a way to embed project metadata into .git itself, so source code commits don't mess up with wikis and issues. Perhaps some independent refs like git notes? https://git-scm.com/…

I think this already exists for issues. git-bug [1] uses git internal files to store the issues. It is distributed and it even comes with a web ui in addition to the usual cli.

[1]: https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug

Re: Radicle: Open-Source, Peer-to-Peer, GitHub Alternative

#202

Post by nine_k »

EchoReflection wrote: post #182
falcor84 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>a "radicle" (not a "radical"!) I'll just mention that etymologically both "radical" and "radicle" come from the Latin "radix", meaning "root".

dang, seems like they missed out on not going for "radix"

Good thing they avoided that. "Radix" is a much more common word, easier to clash with other same-named things, harder to search for.

I greatly disapprove of the fashion of naming projects with common words. Names like Flickr or Google or Linux or Inkscape are effortlessly unique. Names like Snowflake are self-defeatedly commonplace.

Re: Radicle: Open-Source, Peer-to-Peer, GitHub Alternative

#203

Post by unqueued »

pbronez wrote: post #97
cloudhead wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question! One of the key ideas is that each user chooses what repositories they host via pretty fine-grained policies. This means you can easily block content you're not interested in seeding, or simply configure your node to only host content you explicitly allow. You can also choose which public nodes to connect to if you'd rather not connect to random nodes on the network; though I don't expect most users to…

Is there nice interop with BitTorrent for those cases, similar to how Git Annex adds large binary support to git? For example, if I use Radicle to version a machine learning project, can I use a Magnet link for multi-GB model files?

You can already use it with git-annex to store binaries using the git-annex-remote-git-aafs[1] special remote.

Although I would be careful and make sure you understand what it is doing to your branch namespace. Even though in the worst case it would not save any space over directly committing binaries, they are in orphan branches that can be pruned without rewriting history.

But even so, you can just use any number of git-annex special remotes to bypass using git for sharing files.

They may eventually add first-party support for git-annex. But nothing is stopping you from using it now.

[1]: https://github.com/domo141/git-annex-remote-git-aafs

Re: Radicle: Open-Source, Peer-to-Peer, GitHub Alternative

#204

Post by [deleted] »

perihelions wrote: post #128

That's a neat name! If "seeding" is the word for distribution in a peer-to-peer network, then a "radicle" (not a "radical"!) must be named after: - "In botany, the radicle is the first part of a seedling (a growing plant embryo) to emerge from the seed during the process of germination.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicle

[deleted]

Re: Radicle: Open-Source, Peer-to-Peer, GitHub Alternative

#205

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

lkjdsklf wrote: post #194
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's really zero trust in using this It's peer to peer, anyone using the protocol is entitled to share and collect as much data as the protocol permits, and the founders have no more power than any other user. It's way less sketchy than anybody operating a server and asking you to trust that they're doing so responsibly--which is pretty much everybody. I don't think that everything can or should be made zero-tru…

The alternative isn’t just some random person hosting a random server. It’s dealing with a company where you agree to a policy that describes how they can use your data. That means you have legal recourse if they violate that agreement. It also means you know who actually has your data which isn’t the case with these federated networks. Every entity that has your data on their server is another entity can use it in a…

If you're powerful enough to have a lawyer for such things, then I guess that's a significant difference. But for most of us, your description of the alternative is indeed tantamount to "some random person hosting a random server". And you're right that federated designs are susceptible to bad behavior on the part of the server admin. I assume that's why the radicle protocol guide (https://docs.radicle.xyz/guides/protocol) has a section differentiating P2P from federated.

I don't know these people, maybe they are indeed up to something nefarious, but their design is inherently more trustworthy than federated or hosted solutions. If I must chose between transparency into finances and a nonhierarchical design which presents no high value targets for corruption to focus on, I'll take the better design over the financial transparency every time.

If they turn out to be actually shady I can just configure my node not to talk to them or their friends and keep on using it, which is a lot more than can be said for most of the alternatives.

Besides, it's a publishing platform. What is this "your data" you're talking about? The whole point is to spread it far and wide and to collect contributions from far and wide.

Re: Radicle: Open-Source, Peer-to-Peer, GitHub Alternative

#206

Post by tonymet »

LegibleCrimson wrote: post #196
tonymet wrote: post #166

isn't git already the open source, p2p Github alternative? coders will do practically anything to avoid learning `git rebase` . ( don't read too deeply on this chaps)

It is if you don't care about any of the other things that Git brings to the table. I fail to see what `git rebase` has to do with issue trackers, project boards, wikis, repository notifications, or any of the other things that GitHub does. I use git forges as well as `git rebase`. Neither of these things precludes the other.

GCM glorified commit messages

Re: Radicle: Open-Source, Peer-to-Peer, GitHub Alternative

#207

Post by andrewaylett »

always2slow wrote: post #185
zlatan_todoric wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you go [0] - the project hasn't launched yet and there are bits and pieces to be dealt with, the current focus is a bit somewhere else. You can also build from source [1] with Rust's cargo. [0] https://files.radicle.xyz/latest/ [1] https://app.radicle.xyz/nodes/seed.radicle.garden/rad:z3gqcJ...

Thanks but... no thanks, you've missed my point entirely. Why would I want to run peer to peer software built by developers whose security stance starts with curl-bash? Would you curl-bash a webserver? an email server? No? Probably even worse for your source code repository then right?

The counterpoint would be: you're intending to run their code, if it's malicious then you're hosed anyway.

In bygone times, one might suffer from a truncation attack or otherwise end up running arbitrary code that's not what the vendor intended. Nowadays, there's really no security difference in curl|bash vs downloading a package and running it. Or, indeed, installing using `cargo install`.

That doesn't mean I'm happy running it, but my argument against it is less a security argument and more a predictability one: I want to be able to cleanly uninstall later, and package managers normally provide more consistent support for uninstalling than an arbitrary shell script.

Re: Radicle: Open-Source, Peer-to-Peer, GitHub Alternative

#208

Post by colinsane »

clemiclemen wrote: post #201
est wrote: post #4

This looks like a fine project for its purpose, but I think git is already open-source and p2p. You don't need sh What's missing in git is code issues, wikis, discussions, github pages and most importantly, a developer profile network. We need a way to embed project metadata into .git itself, so source code commits don't mess up with wikis and issues. Perhaps some independent refs like git notes? https://git-scm.com/…

I think this already exists for issues. git-bug [1] uses git internal files to store the issues. It is distributed and it even comes with a web ui in addition to the usual cli. [1]: https://github.com/MichaelMure/git-bug

do you know of any projects using [anything like] git-bug?

i know i've encountered something like this once in a notable repo. thought it was graphics related, like mesa or something, but looks like they're using GitLab.

Re: Radicle: Open-Source, Peer-to-Peer, GitHub Alternative

#209

Post by fouc »

cloudhead wrote: post #45
wokwokwok wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the documentation and this stands out to me: > Radicle repositories, which can be either public or private, can accommodate diverse content including source code, documentation, and arbitrary data sets. If this is, basically, a peer-to-peer file sharing application, what part of the protocol handles dealing with abuse? Otherwise, how is this different from the previous generation of file sharing applications (…

Good question! One of the key ideas is that each user chooses what repositories they host via pretty fine-grained policies. This means you can easily block content you're not interested in seeding, or simply configure your node to only host content you explicitly allow. You can also choose which public nodes to connect to if you'd rather not connect to random nodes on the network; though I don't expect most users to…

Random thought but what about calling it a subscription?

For example, allow users to be able to subscribe to specific repos or specific topics or specific people etc

Re: Radicle: Open-Source, Peer-to-Peer, GitHub Alternative

#210

Post by falcor84 »

nine_k wrote: post #200
falcor84 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>a "radicle" (not a "radical"!) I'll just mention that etymologically both "radical" and "radicle" come from the Latin "radix", meaning "root".

Indeed. Radicle is "tiny root", a noun, while "radical" is "pertaining to root, root-level, deepest possible", an adjective.

Sorry for nitpicking but "radical" is also used as a noun, particularly when looking for roots of an algebraic expression, as well as in chemistry (free radicals).
Post reply on HN