31–40 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... Training their own models out of your code...
If you're publishing your code anywhere, it's getting trained on. MS does not restrict themselves to only training on GH-hosted code.
citation needed. first they need to know my code exists... spend time and traffic crawling it because it's sure as hell not going to be hosted on azure... probably get detected and banned.
What really stands out to me in this migration story isn't the technical side at all, but the reminder that "feature parity" isn't the real hurdle here. Codeberg is already good enough for most day to day workflows; what it doesn't have is the gravitational pull GitHub built through network effects, integrations, and plain old inertia.
Does Codeberg provide free CI runners? I'd estimate Microsoft spends over $100m/year on free Github CI. Likely their biggest cost. It doesn't seem like a reasonable thing Codeberg to fund for free.
What really stands out to me in this migration story isn't the technical side at all, but the reminder that "feature parity" isn't the real hurdle here. Codeberg is already good enough for most day to day workflows; what it doesn't have is the gravitational pull GitHub built through network effects, integrations, and plain old inertia.
This is partially being addressed by projects like https://tangled.org . It's built on the same protocol as bluesky, meaning your identity is preserved across different platforms so that _where_ your git is hosted is unrelated to how you discover and connect with others.
[0]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo-contrib/federation/src/branch/m...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... Training their own models out of your code...
If you're publishing your code anywhere, it's getting trained on. MS does not restrict themselves to only training on GH-hosted code.
The two ends of the spectrum, both source available and copyleft licensed code shouldn't be used for training, but who's listening.
I've noticed that several projects on the front page today (and over the past few days) are migrating away from GitHub. Is there any recent event or broader trend that explains this shift?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me this is the GitHub moat.
It isn't really a moat so much as a loss leader. Travis CI was free back in the day IIRC.
(I'm just keeping the metaphor alive because for me it is the primary blocker, whatever we call it.)
What really stands out to me in this migration story isn't the technical side at all, but the reminder that "feature parity" isn't the real hurdle here. Codeberg is already good enough for most day to day workflows; what it doesn't have is the gravitational pull GitHub built through network effects, integrations, and plain old inertia.
Then again maybe for stuff like actions and in general CI/CD it's not all that bad, you don't need whole team to know exactly how to write it, you just need to have a person knowing it. and it's generally not all that hard to learn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do, but their capacity is limited so you have to ask them for access and make a reasonable case. https://docs.codeberg.org/ci/
Actually, that's only for the Woodpecker instance. Forgejo Actions can be used without asking for permission, and three tiers of (Linux-only, adm64-only) free runners are provided.
Does Codeberg provide free CI runners? I'd estimate Microsoft spends over $100m/year on free Github CI. Likely their biggest cost. It doesn't seem like a reasonable thing Codeberg to fund for free.
They do, but their capacity is limited so you have to ask them for access and make a reasonable case. https://docs.codeberg.org/ci/