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

91–100 of 299 posts

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

#91

Post by maninak »

throwaway220033 wrote: post #87
cloudhead wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't reveal anything about our finances, but the current code base is a little under 2 years old. We've worked on the general problem for over 4 years in total though. The team is around 12 people, split between protocol, cli, tui, web and content. The product is set to launch this month, so we're just starting to onboard users, but many people in the community are already using it, and we've been using it interna…

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…

[dead]

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

#92

Post by mariusor »

cloudhead wrote: post #85
pastage wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That problem is social you can never be sure of that even with hardware signing of commits. No tech can ever solve that. Just get "pull requests" from contributors you know and pull from maintainers you trust. Is the social model.

That's not quite right, we solved this in Radicle. Each change in ownership (adding/removing maintainers) is signed by the previous set of owners. You can therefore trace the changes in ownership starting from the original set, which is bound to the Repository ID.

Sure, but again, you've added convenience - or what you feel like it's convenience - for something that probably can be achieved right now with open source tools. A "CONTRIBUTORS" file with sign-offs by maintainers is an example of a solution for the same thing.

I don't deny that your improvements can benefit certain teams/developers but I feel like there are very few people that would actually care about them and they're not making use of alternatives.

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

#93

Post by djha-skin »

lftherios wrote: post #15

Hi HN. I am the co-founder of the project. If you are interested in how the protocol works under the hood, start here: https://docs.radicle.xyz/ Docs are still WIP though.

I'm interested in this, but I noticed a base58 hash on the page. I'm not really interested in crypto. How much could I use this product without adopting crypto? Is this attached to some digital currency like ipfs or is it independent?

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

#94

Post by marcus0x62 »

throwaway220033 wrote: post #87
cloudhead wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't reveal anything about our finances, but the current code base is a little under 2 years old. We've worked on the general problem for over 4 years in total though. The team is around 12 people, split between protocol, cli, tui, web and content. The product is set to launch this month, so we're just starting to onboard users, but many people in the community are already using it, and we've been using it interna…

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.

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

#96

Post by blueflow »

bawolff wrote: post #22
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/…

> and most importantly, a developer profile network What has the world come to where that is the most important part? -- I think gerrit used to store code reviews in git.

Welcome to the era of self-promoters and narcissists.

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

#97

Post by pbronez »

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…

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?

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

#99

Post by pbronez »

grumbel wrote: post #52
zamalek wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classic git does not evade censorship, such as the extremely recent news concerning Nintendo. An idea like this has been rolling around in my head, and I'm overjoyed that someone has done the hard work.

Git evades censorship just fine, since it is properly decentralized and doesn't care about where you got the repository from. Plain HTTP transport however does not and most Git repositories are referred to by HTTP URL. If you simply host Git on IPFS you have it properly decentralized without the limits of HTTP. IPNS (DNS of IPFS), which you need to point people to the latest version of your repository, however wasn't…

Yeah that’s been my experience with IPFS. Very cool idea, practically doesn’t work very well. Haven’t tried recently though, maybe it’s improved.

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

#100

Post by pbronez »

cloudhead wrote: post #63
saurik wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why does the documentation say this is "important"? GitHub certainly does not have a notice anywhere saying "it's important to only publish repositories you own or are a maintainer of" (...well, I guess it could be buried deep in some user guide I never read, lol).

I think it's currently more likely to happen on Radicle given there is no search or discovery functionality, and repositories exist on a flat hierarchy, ie. they are not namespaced by user/org name, so harder to distinguish if they share the same name and description.

Maybe Kagi could add this to their custom index.
Post reply on HN