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

Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

jorijn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 380 posts

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#41

Post by jdw64 »

cyanydeez wrote: post #26
jdw64 wrote: post #15

People constantly cry out for decentralization. In reality, however, most systems eventually end up centralized. Perhaps when people ask for decentralization, they are actually seeking a new center where they can become the new pioneers. It seems that when they feel they have no chance of winning under the existing rules, they use decentralization as a pretext to overturn the board.

I think some people are mentally ill, and think decentralization is a libertarian ideal where they can have all benefits of society, but they don't have to pay for the roads, the fire department, etc. That some how, those things will spontaneously appear because of . Others recognize there's some kind of more comfortable middle ground where decentralization means the same as a town/city/state type of social good that…

It could be a strategy, or it could be a sense of ethics. And your point makes sense, and I also agree with you. The first part of your comment is a bit harsh, but if you soften your reply a bit, it matches my thoughts. I'm giving you an upvote because I agree with your idea.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#43

Post by epistasis »

I have been using my self hosted forgejo in May, and liking it just fine, I recommend it for anybody who is curious. I don't really trust GitHub to keep things private anymore.

The hardest parts of switching to forgejo: 1) coming up with a comfortable way to pronounce "forgejo" in my head, and 2) adapting to not having the same GitHub v3 API and needing to switch to a different CLI for PR creation, repo creation, etc.

The pronunciation thing is probably the more difficult of the two.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#44

Post by embedding-shape »

import wrote: post #14

I’ve moved to self hosted gitea a year ago running in my homelab and not publicly accessible. No https, registrations disabled and repos are not public. I’m thinking about making public instance and use it with https, but minimize the attack surface, any recommendations especially about gitea/forgejo?

> I’m thinking about making public instance and use it with https, but minimize the attack surface, any recommendations especially about gitea/forgejo?

I've done this too in the past, I'm still running the internal/lan Forgejo instance, but not any public instance at the moment. But in the past, I've setup a public read-only instance, which mirrors my internal one, then one reverse-proxy connection from the internal to the public instance, which the public one uses for getting the git data. Then it mostly just kept on working by itself, whenever I changed anything in the internal Forgejo, the public one got updated, yet I could keep all issues, CI and more completely private and on lan.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#46

Post by echelon »

sc68cal wrote: post #34

I have also moved my git repositories to a self-hosted NUC. I have not yet bothered with a HTTP frontend to share it with the world, mostly because I don't want to provide AI scrapers with content and don't want to put the work in to block them. It's a shame that all these companies that benefited from open source have poisoned the industry like this

> It's a shame that all these companies that benefited from open source have poisoned the industry like this

Open Source and the OSI are an industry plant. Look at who sponsors it.

The monopoly hyperscaler conglomerates get free labor and use it to build the world we despise: tracking panopticons, phones we can't install things on, device attestation, browser monoculture with no adblock, etc. etc.

Google made people fall in love with BSD/MIT, and look what it did.

Just a few of the classic plays:

"That Belongs to Us Now" - (1) vendors build stuff like Elasticsearch and Redis, (2) the hyperscalers yoink it into their proprietary offerings and take all the profits, (3) original authors and their companies starve.

"Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" - (1) vendors take an open source project like KTHML or Linux and build their version, (2) they flood the market with their offering, pushing out the competitors, (3) they use anti-competitive means to get their thing in front of all eyeballs, (4) once they have marketshare, they do evil things like add tracking and remove freedoms

Open Source needs to replaced with "freedom for the people, companies must pay". Source available shareware with anti-hyperscaler teeth.

Even Richard Stallman's licenses are not strong enough. CC BY-NC-SA is better.

"Pure" Open Source is corporate welfare. It was a mistake. It enabled giants to hang us with our own rope.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#47

Post by jdw64 »

ses1984 wrote: post #20
jdw64 wrote: post #15

People constantly cry out for decentralization. In reality, however, most systems eventually end up centralized. Perhaps when people ask for decentralization, they are actually seeking a new center where they can become the new pioneers. It seems that when they feel they have no chance of winning under the existing rules, they use decentralization as a pretext to overturn the board.

If only you bothered to read the first line of the article, directly under the title: >I moved my code from GitHub to a self-hosted Forgejo

My ponit was not against self-hosting.

It was more about the symbolism. If the goal is decentralization, “I moved to a personal forge I control” is the post's core idea. But framing it as “leaving GitHub for Forgejo” inevitably creates a new flag to gather around.

That may be useful and even necessary, but it also shows that decentralization movements often produce new centers, names, and identities.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#48

Post by embedding-shape »

diath wrote: post #37
henrydark wrote: post #29

I now use syncthing for the .git directory, excluding HEAD file and a few others, between my few devices and a vps on hetzner. Most of git is append only immutable blobs - just sharing these between devices just works for me. "users" and authentication is handled by syncthing. I have pre and post hooks to make sure no device tries to change HEAD of branch owned by another device, just to be safe, be it hasn't been ac…

If you have a VPS that's always running, you can just use it as a git remote through SSH without moving things around or any third party software, just put the Git repo on the VPS and clone it via "git clone ssh://user@host/path". You get authentication, encryption and synchronization out of the box with just ssh/git.

Had to vouch for your comment, not sure why it was marked as dead.

Definitively the easiest way to approach this, and the most standard way too. If you already have ssh, which I'm guessing you do if you managed to setup syncthing on it in the first place, then you can literally just point git to host+path and it'll use whatever ssh authentication you already have in place.

Can hardly get simpler :)

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#49

Post by p2detar »

luxuryballs wrote: post #35

Question for anyone, why do people use GitHub or an alternative rather than just spinning up your own Gitea docker container or similar?

I got my own Forgejo, but I'm still on Github. That's the easiest way to check what the people I follow push, comment or star. I like this part of Github a lot.

Re: Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

#50

Post by cyanydeez »

jdw64 wrote: post #41
cyanydeez wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think some people are mentally ill, and think decentralization is a libertarian ideal where they can have all benefits of society, but they don't have to pay for the roads, the fire department, etc. That some how, those things will spontaneously appear because of . Others recognize there's some kind of more comfortable middle ground where decentralization means the same as a town/city/state type of social good that…

It could be a strategy, or it could be a sense of ethics. And your point makes sense, and I also agree with you. The first part of your comment is a bit harsh, but if you soften your reply a bit, it matches my thoughts. I'm giving you an upvote because I agree with your idea.

The first paragraph comes from the Epstein files. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/09/jeffrey-e...
Post reply on HN