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

261–270 of 299 posts

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

#261

Post by 9dev »

avgcorrection wrote: post #242
9dev wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, exactly. Radicle doing it this way, Fossil another - see here why that is a problem: https://xkcd.com/927/

And Fossil is an entirely different VCS. What’s the alternative? That at least N projects cooperate and agree on a common design before they do the implementation? (Then maybe someone can complain about design-by-committee.)

Yes! That's exactly what I would like to see - come together as a working group, create a PR on git itself, and implement standard support for issues, PRs, discussions, projects, votings, project websites, what-have-you. The community will take it from there.

The alternative to that would be the git project itself coming up with an implementation. They have reasonable experience working with the Kernel, and the creation of git itself seems to have worked reasonably well -- although I'm not sure I would want to use something Linus considers ergonomic :)

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

#262

Post by cloudhead »

20after4 wrote: post #243

I'm curious why dual license with both the MIT and Apache licenses. This is not a criticism, and I could be wrong about this, but doesn't the mit license allow anyone to essentially bypass any extra responsibilities provided for in the Apache license? Specifically I'm thinking of the patent license grant provisions. I don't think the MIT license has anything to say about patents. And if that is the case then why not…

Contributions to the repo have to abide to both licenses, derivative work gets to choose only one.

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

#263

Post by EspressoGPT »

always2slow wrote: post #165

>Installation > >The easiest way to install Radicle is by firing up your terminal and running the following command: > >$ curl -sSf https://radicle.xyz/install | sh Ah.. my high hopes were immediately dashed by the trash that is curl-bash. What a great signal for thoughtless development, if this project catches on I can't wait to watch the security train wreck unfold. Maybe someday we'll get an "Open-Source, Peer-to-…

Download it or don't. Trust the maintainer or don't. Whether you trust the maintainer or not shouldn't be a matter of the installation method, not even with curl-bash.

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

#264

Post by account42 »

avgcorrection wrote: post #242
9dev wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, exactly. Radicle doing it this way, Fossil another - see here why that is a problem: https://xkcd.com/927/

And Fossil is an entirely different VCS. What’s the alternative? That at least N projects cooperate and agree on a common design before they do the implementation? (Then maybe someone can complain about design-by-committee.)

> What’s the alternative? That at least N projects cooperate and agree on a common design before they do the implementation?

That would be ideal, yes. You should solicit comments from the greater community before setting the format in stone. But the very minimum would be to build on existing attempts at issues-in-git like [0] instead of reinventing the wheel unless you have a very very very good reason.

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

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

#265

Post by account42 »

9dev wrote: post #261
avgcorrection wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Fossil is an entirely different VCS. What’s the alternative? That at least N projects cooperate and agree on a common design before they do the implementation? (Then maybe someone can complain about design-by-committee.)

Yes! That's exactly what I would like to see - come together as a working group, create a PR on git itself, and implement standard support for issues, PRs, discussions, projects, votings, project websites, what-have-you. The community will take it from there. The alternative to that would be the git project itself coming up with an implementation. They have reasonable experience working with the Kernel, and the creat…

I would have like to have seen what kind of issue resolution labels old Linus would have come up with. Resolved: YOU GIT has a nice ring to it.

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

#266

Post by throwaway220033 »

marcus0x62 wrote: post #94
throwaway220033 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My question wasn't about your "current codebase". It was about Radicle. It was launched 6 years ago, and for some reason it's always about to onboard the first users when crypto is on hype :) An idea doesn't take off -- totally normal, but how on earth can you fund Radicle for such a long time with no users? You can even throw it away and rewrite it! What's the source of funding for Radicle ? Asking because you seem…

I might take your comment more seriously if you a) put your name behind it and b) dropped the “just asking questions bro” shtick when you obviously have some sort of axe to grind with this project.

Good luck with your reasoning skillset

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

#267

Post by zlatan_todoric »

alchemist1e9 wrote: post #213
doctorpangloss wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say you had $12m, with the requirement that it be spent on an "interesting problem." What would you spend it on? These guys picked "distributed source code repositories, with a client idiosyncratically written in Rust and idiosyncratically built with a cryptocurrency idea." Why? I agree it's intellectually stimulating. But besides that, is there a reason they are particularly passionate about distributed source…

> I agree it's intellectually stimulating. But besides that, is there a reason they are particularly passionate about distributed source code repositories? I’m surprised the answer isn’t obvious to you, yet again maybe I shouldn’t be as I suspect you’re a nocoiner. Distributed decentralized anything is fundamentally about censorship resistance. Understanding that, for me, make the answer as to why they are passionate…

For me it is not only about censorship resistance, it is also about having everything stored in git (so you loose nothing if you decide to move around) and about easy way to be a node itself (you installed Radicle? Congrats, you're a node in the network - you participate, you help, you extend. You can make a permanent node with domain name but you're already a node once you installed Radicle and started the node daemon).

It is this radical idea that everyone can easily be an equal participant in the network and that they have power over what they want and don't want. Open source nature further helps you to adapt things - don't like our web UI local-first interface? Build your own one or adapt ours to your need.

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

#268

Post by zlatan_todoric »

mdaniel wrote: post #174
zlatan_todoric wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are actually working on a number of CI integrations and building our own native one, for our needs.

> building our own native one, for our needs. I realize I'm just some rando on the Internet, but I'm begging you please don't introduce Yet Another CI Job Specification ™ I'm sure you have your favorites, or maybe you hate them all equally and can just have a dartboard but (leaving aside the obvious xkcd joke) unless you're going to then publish a JSON Schema and/or VSCode and/or IJ plugin to edit whatever myst…

Hey, we are having fun doing it :) It is already pretty nice for testing things and show us the results. It is not going to be forced on users at all and it will share parts of the code with all the third-party CI integrations that we are working on.

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

#269

Post by vinnyhaps »

hanniabu wrote: post #168
cloudhead wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While Git is designed in some way for peer-to-peer interactions, there is no deployment of it that works that way. All deployments use the client-server model because Git lacks functionality to be deployed as-is in a peer-to-peer network. For one, it has no way of verifying that the repository you downloaded after a `git clone` is the one you asked for, which means you need to clone from a trusted source (ie. a known…

The problem I'd like to see solved is source of truth. It'd be nice if there were a way to sign a repo with an ENS or domain withiut knowing the hash. Another thing is knowing if the commit history has been tampered with without knowing the hash. The reason for needing to not know the hash is for cases like tornado cash. The site and repo was taken down. There's a bunch of people sharing a codebase with differing has…

> The reason for needing to not know the hash is for cases like tornado cash. The site and repo was taken down. There's a bunch of people sharing a codebase with differing hashes, you have no idea which is real or altered.

> This is also important for cases where the domain is hacked.

I think at some point you need to know some sort of root-of-trust to kick off the trusting process. I believe in this case, you would trust a certain DID or set of DIDs (i.e. a Tornado Cash developer's public key). You can clone their version of the project and the history of the project MUST be signed by their private key for it to be legitimate.

To clarify, in Radicle, a peer's set of references are always signed by their key and this data is advertised so that you can always verify, using their public key, that this data is indeed what this peer has/had in their Git history. If this ever diverges then any fetching from that peer is rejected.

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

#270

Post by mythhabit »

bawolff wrote: post #239
mythhabit wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All nodes can still have equal privilege. Data must originate from somewhere, that is a seed node. And supernode is, or at least was when I studied CS, basically just a more connected node. That said, I agree, a project like this could do with a more formal and structured definition of goals.

> Data must originate from somewhere, that is a seed node From what i read in their docs, that is not how they are defining seed node.

From https://app.radicle.xyz/nodes/seed.radicle.xyz/rad:z3trNYnLW...

> A seed is a node that hosts and serves one or more projects on the network.

I have not read the entirety of their documentation in great detail, but what I did glance over, I did not see anything particular special about seed nodes other than they host and serve projects. And obviously there is a bit of plumbing required for that.

Post reply on HN