- cross-posted to:
- programming@programming.dev
- microsoft@lemdro.id
- cross-posted to:
- programming@programming.dev
- microsoft@lemdro.id
You must log in or register to comment.
Recently deleted all my GitHub repos. Going to put some up on codeberg.org !
Glad to see that Microsoft is still the best. The best at shooting themselves in the foot chasing the AI bullshit.
There’s something heartwarming about a massive company completely ballsing something up like this, and losing money in the process.
I fucking hope microshaft goes bankrupt. I really do. I know it’s unlikely, but I’m trying to remember that no company is too big to fail
They literally could have just not done anything to it the past two years and it’d be better than it is today
They really are just like me
GIT is a distributed version control system, there is no reason to centralize it on GitHub, use Forgejo and the Fediverse for your development - today!
Forgejo is easy. Setting up a runner is the problem
Their dind solution is really easy
Dind?
Docker-in-docker. Run container agents which can still run docker commands, often by side-car daemon.
Is there a good tutorial about setting it up with compose?
codeberg.org (which runs on Forgejo) offers a nice ci solution: Woodpecker.
It’s nice that they have this but the real problem is GitHub Actions is provided for free for all repos. Woodpecker looks like you need to self host. I’m not going to set up and pay for host just for the small amount of time I have working on one of my projects.
You’re right, that it doesn’t just work as conveniently out-of-the-box on Codeberg. However you do not have to self-host: You merely have to apply to get access to their hosted Woodpecker instance at ci.codeberg.org.
See docs here if you want to try it out: https://docs.codeberg.org/ci/
Onboarding requires a few manual steps, as to prevent the abuse of Codeberg’s limited resources. You will need to request access by filling out this form. After submitting, a Codeberg volunteer will review your request and grant you access if your use case is appropriate.
Edit: added quote from docs
I don’t know how Woodpecker works, but I have a lot of experience with Gitlab runners. You can startup a runner locally, as it doesn’t need to be publicly accessible from the internet. Only the Gitlab instance needs to be accessible for the runner, as the runner actively fetches new jobs from there and pushes the results again.
If Woodpecker works similarly, you could just deploy the runner locally while you’re actively developing and your computer is running anyway, if you don’t want to pay for a VPS.
or a public instance like codeberg if you don’t want to (or can’t) self host
Done. Moved.
It is insanely convenient that github exists though. Unless there was some way to federate git servers with each other, open source libs would be a lot less discoverable.
Forgejo has a roadmap for federation: https://codeberg.org/forgejo-contrib/federation/src/branch/main/FederationRoadmap.md
Not sure how many people, or any, are actively working on it.
Embrace, expand, extinguish.
I know this is fun to point and say about MS, but not really the case here IMO. Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish describes the MS strategy for creating/maintaining a monopoly - but GitHub nearly is a monopoly. Extinguishing it only takes themselves out of the competition.
This is just plain old mismanagement if you ask me, and ostensibly a victim of the current AI craze.
Yeah, it’s not like Microsoft has a different platform they want to push instead, unless you want code in Microsoft Word.
It’s middle managers getting their cost cutting efficiency in the log before moving up to destroy something else on a bigger scale.
I mean they literally have azure devops…
Not that they are pushing it, but they do have a full fledged mature second offering
I haven’t used it but I was under the impression that it is part closer to AWS than GitHub, as in a locked in platform rather than agnostic versioning and deployment. But I haven’t really used much or the business parts of GitHub either though.
Microslop ruins everything it touches.
Any info on scaling forgejo to large size (>1000 users)? My organization has a heavy presence on GitHub.com AND a large GitHub enterprise server as well. Anyone tried at scale?
Until someone can answer your question directly, Codeberg would be the best common example with 50,000 users in 2023.
Woah!
But isn’t codeberg only for OSS? I imagine most companies won’t be able to migrate to codeberg for that reason.
codeberg runs on forgejo
A soft fork of forgejo*
I don’t see Gitlab mentioned anywhere, is something wrong with it? Or am I wrong and it’s not a GitHub alternative?
Ew!
Depends on context really. If you’re looking for a hosted solution similar to Github, Gitlab is much more expensive. Our team was on a self-hosted version of Gitlab but needed more change control around PR reviews and merging. We moved to Github and got that for $4 per user per month where that same functionality would’ve cost ~$30 per user per month on Gitlab. That’s a crazy price difference and was easily worth the migration to Github for our use case.
Yeah if you need enterprise features, it gets expensive quickly, but the free tier for small projects is all right.
One thing that’s slowly becoming annoying is the change in mentality when deciding what feature is available in the free tier: in the beginning, I think the idea was that a feature started in the paid tier, and then, if it could be useful to everyone, it was available in the free tier after a short period. I think it’s slowly shifting, some features like scoped labels, a feature existing for years, is still a premium feature. I’m not entirely trusting the business behind GitLab for stuff like that.
More than a decade ago I joined github among other systems, in order to report bugs to FOSS projects. Now I quit GitHub as it’s too risky being on there. So if a project wants bug reports, go somewhere users data is not put at risk. Or go without bug reports.
I’m still not sure what to do with my own code.
I placed my public projects on GitHub to have a visible online front and invite people to submit patches. I haven’t had any issues with GitHub so far. I considered Microsoft to be a good steward… until recently, since articles like this keep popping up.
I also already have a self-hosted repository for my private projects. It would be simple enough for me to move everything there, but then I basically lose any chance of other people contributing and that online resume I built up over time.
Codeberg seems to be the best alternative to Github right now. It’s fully FOSS and supported by a nonprofit and it’s getting more and more popular.
So if you want a good alternative to GitHub but still people to be able to see and contribute to your code, I would suggest Codeberg.
I also use CodeFloe. While smaller, they have fewer guidelines around what is allowed to be there. While Codeberg is generally okay with people putting small private repos there, I don’t feel comfortable using what I view as a public resource for my private stuff.
One possibility is to leave the Github available but just have it as a project page that points them to where the development is really happening and then host it where ever you want. In the near term this seems like a solution that at the very least makes the project visible and findable for those that go looking just on github.
I hope everyone moves off of their shit and wherever they end up blocks all of the ai bot copilot slop ass.
