Evaluating new software forges • Hacker News Board

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#61

Post by lucideer » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 3:58 PM UTC

This post bothered me.

Perhaps I'm being too nitpicky, and there's nothing inherently wrong with their final choices, but their criticisms of the other systems alongside their reasons for choosing what they did are contradictory; overall the article was internally inconsistent.

Gitlab was dismissed for the SaaS being only open-core, despite opting for self-hosting in the end. Codeberg was dismissed for having limited CI, but in the end they went for a separate standalone CI anyway (& almost the same platform as Codeberg, just with the added overhead of self-hosting).

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#62

Post by steezeburger » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 3:59 PM UTC

tailspin2019 wrote: post #37

steezeburger wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sad to see this down voted. I agree. They also sound insufferable. Maybe it's just their writing style, trying to be inflammatory for engagement, but they are not someone I would want to work with.

You and the parent seem to dislike the author sharing their opinions on things on their own blog . And yet you're happy to share your own dismissive opinions on the author here. FWIW I find the author's obviously subjective opinions on their tools much more valuable than your obviously subjective opinions of this author.

I don't care if the author shares their opinions, but I'm free to share mine as well, and I agreed with the parent comment at the time it was downvoted.

I've just been noticing a trend of people, like the article author, who are quick to dismiss things for reasons that are inconsistent and dogmatic. Why be so close minded? I think it's okay to be dismissive of the dismissive. Which, I didn't really dismiss him did I? I read his entire article.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#63

Post by Klonoar » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 4:03 PM UTC

tailspin2019 wrote: post #37

steezeburger wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sad to see this down voted. I agree. They also sound insufferable. Maybe it's just their writing style, trying to be inflammatory for engagement, but they are not someone I would want to work with.

You and the parent seem to dislike the author sharing their opinions on things on their own blog . And yet you're happy to share your own dismissive opinions on the author here. FWIW I find the author's obviously subjective opinions on their tools much more valuable than your obviously subjective opinions of this author.

They’re not saying that the author can’t post whatever they want on their blog.

They’re saying that we, as a community, should not elevate unsubstantiated writing that comes across as “I don’t truly understand these things or have deep experience, but this is what everyone else says on every other blog post or comment, and I’m parroting it”.

I would add on to it that I feel there’s sometimes a real thing in these discussions where reviews like these often come from people just tinkering and looking for the next thing to mindlessly experiment with. It’s not always representative of real world trade offs.

(I say all this as someone who self hosts a Gitea instance)

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#64

Post by lloeki » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 4:06 PM UTC

I really wish a cross site standard emerged to enable PRs from one forge to the next without creating accounts:

- clone repo from original forge, push on yours

- open PR on your forge, kicking in a like-blog-trackbacks-of-yore API so that the PR would be known/opened on the original forge.

The thing would really put the "Pull Request" back in PR.

Lots of things to define and handle correctly to prevent abuse but it could be a much better distributed experience.

I guess big players like GitHub would nit like that too much though as it would fragment their coding social network.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#65

Post by nirga » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 4:09 PM UTC

It’s hard to build a community around an open source if you’re not on GitHub imo. And if you’re not building an open source, than iiuc GitHub can’t use your code for copilot training so the main reason for not choosing GitHub according to the post isn’t relevant.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#66

Post by ahepp » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 4:09 PM UTC

sebastianconcpt wrote: post #8

Is not hard for me to see a case being built around the idea of finding value in having code to stay excluded from the surface exposed to AI so it becomes impossible for it to predate it. It's a type of "security" that doesn't find an answer in "better AIs" or "AIs with improved alignment". The value comes out of being safe from the risk that can come out of the humans in control of these AIs. I comes out of staying…

Shall we call it the "slow code movement"?

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#67

Post by erlend_sh » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 4:17 PM UTC

lloeki wrote: post #64

I really wish a cross site standard emerged to enable PRs from one forge to the next without creating accounts: - clone repo from original forge, push on yours - open PR on your forge, kicking in a like-blog-trackbacks-of-yore API so that the PR would be known/opened on the original forge. The thing would really put the "Pull Request" back in PR. Lots of things to define and handle correctly to prevent abuse but it c…

That’s what ActivityPub in GitLab and elsewhere aims to enable: https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/11247

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#68

Post by godber » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 4:22 PM UTC

aulisius wrote: post #4

Coincidentally, I've been mulling the same idea for a week now. A self-hostable source forge + registry to serve artifacts would be amazing. I think the only thing you'd lose is the 'social' aspects of GitHub, but I believe that can be made up with a combination of rss feeds (?), ActivityPub etc.

I think we've been thinking similarly. Decentralization will have it's costs. I've been thinking Opt-In centralized search for personal repos, maybe as a gitea (or other self hosted options) plug-in. But as you suggest, maybe existing features can be leveraged to prove the social/discoverability.

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#69

Post by philipov » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 4:23 PM UTC

lucideer wrote: post #61

This post bothered me. Perhaps I'm being too nitpicky, and there's nothing inherently wrong with their final choices, but their criticisms of the other systems alongside their reasons for choosing what they did are contradictory; overall the article was internally inconsistent. Gitlab was dismissed for the SaaS being only open-core, despite opting for self-hosting in the end. Codeberg was dismissed for having limited…

Open-core was mentioned, but was not a dealbreaker. Gitlab was dismissed for just following along with what GitHub does and being "AI-powered"

Re: Evaluating new software forges

#70

Post by rapnie » Sun, Dec 17, 2023, 4:25 PM UTC

https://ayllu-forge.org/

> Hyper Performant & Hackable Code Forge Built on Open Standards. Ayllu is a lightweight code forge designed to enable individuals and community projects to develop software in collaboration across open internet standards.