251 pointsby Gedxx5 hours ago50 comments
  • MintsJohn35 minutes ago
    I tried codeberg, used it a year, then early this year in all their wisdom codeberg decided to show adverserial random text instead of my repo, reporteldly to mess up llm training to user agents they weren't sure were human.

    Codeberg had one job, serve my repo, it didn't do that, when brought up, I was told it was a feature not a bug, they could maybe whitelist me but that wasn't my problem, it was that random people got totally blocked or from accessing the repo. I moved back to github.

    • hackthemack18 minutes ago
      Is your complaint about Anubis? I see the "checking if you are human" kind of text too when going to codeberg, but it is usually only a second or two. It is because I run a bit of obfuscation and resistance to browser finger printing.

      But you find seeing the text for a couple of seconds too annoying to use codeberg? Maybe it is more than 2 seconds for you?

      Everyone has their views on what is acceptable in the world and what they will put up with. Just, to my point of view, I think codeberg is trying to fight the good fight in keeping llms from crawling their website.

    • grayhatter27 minutes ago
      That's the reason I left as well. I complained, was told I need to drop the attitude, or leave.

      so I left.

      must be harder than I think running a src forge

  • jorisw4 hours ago
    Sentiment for/against GitHub aside...

    "Why X are doing Y" articles like these pretend that the premise of "X are doing Y" is true, conveniently skipping to the "Why" before proving that the premise is even accurate in any meaningful way.

    This is why I never buy headlines that start out with "Why".

    > developers are ditching

    Proceeds to list but a handful of remotely meaningful repos against the hundreds of thousands on there

    • stymaar3 hours ago
      > Proceeds to list but a handful of remotely meaningful repos against the hundreds of thousands on there

      The trend is what's interesting here. Github has never been threatened by anyone, because their service was too good to bother for everyone but the most ideologically motivated.

      Now their service has become so bad there's a github joke at work every time something is down or slower than it should.

      Reputation is a very valuable thing, and Github has destroyed a stellar one in a few month, this is newsworthy.

      • dapperdrake3 minutes ago
        Wow. GitHub gaining the same reputation as DNS ("it's always DNS"), printers, OSI layer 8, and PEBKAC is actually a bit of an achievement.

        Hat tip to Microsoft.

      • sverhagen2 hours ago
        Yeah, like how developers were en-masse ditching GitHub to go to GitLab when Microsoft acquired GitHub.
        • bigfishrunningan hour ago
          Maybe those people weren't wrong to do that...
        • HumblyTossed2 hours ago
          It's so weird the herd behavior of developers.
          • bigfishrunningan hour ago
            I would expect that's true in any field that moves as fast as software development.

            Developer A makes a move, perceives some benefit, tells developer B, who does the same thing and then tells developer C.

            Some of the people consider the move, weigh costs, and make an intelligent decision. Many just think "smart people are doing this, I'll do it too". I really doubt this behavior is unique to developers.

      • jorisw3 hours ago
        Except the article doesn't prove any trend
        • embedding-shape3 hours ago
          Here you have (albeit small) proof of some sort of trend: https://trends.google.com/explore?q=codeberg%2Cforgejo%2Cgit...

          Still, doesn't come close to popularity of GitHub itself today (https://trends.google.com/explore?q=codeberg%2Cforgejo%2Cgit...), but I think the trend of moving away from GitHub is clear both in data and sentiment, both qualitative and quantitative.

          • jorisw2 hours ago
            If only the article used any of that. And if it did, I still don't think the headline was warranted.

            Also Google search trends are no evidence of adoption or migration. High chance of correlation, sure.

          • 62746719 minutes ago
            The trend i see in Google is explosion in git(hub) related searches and small blip in non-github alternatives
          • 2 hours ago
            undefined
        • ablob3 hours ago
          The existence and growth of the codeberg project does, however.
          • jorisw3 hours ago
            And what level of 'growth' constitutes a trend that warrants "developers are ditching GitHub" without providing any numbers at all?
          • oblio3 hours ago
            The existence of Telegram doesn't negate the fact that WhatsApp is the world's most popular instant messaging platform, and the others aren't even close.

            And Telegram is a lot more developed and has a much larger percentage of the global instant messenger marketshare, compared to Github vs CodeBerg.

        • bossyTeacher2 hours ago
          Stackoverflow usage didn't fall overnight either. But it has gone the way of MySpace and Oracle.
          • doginasuitan hour ago
            Stackoverflow was still arguably the best offering at what it provided, but what it provided became obsolete. The need for a repository service is only growing.

            It is not clear to me that Github's service has degraded due to incompetence, it also seems possible that they are just struggling to meet demand as the source code backbone of an internet in a critical moment of evolution. I'm not sure any single provider would fare any better.

      • AznHisoka2 hours ago
        [dead]
    • wallaBBBan hour ago
      Agree with the headline part, but the second part not so much.

      As someone mentioned it's about the trend.

      I have heard from people at multiple major open source projects that what is keeping them at Github at this point are free GH Action credits that they get and they couldn't really afford CI/CD if they left. Meaning numbers would be bigger if GH wasn't "paying" projects to stay.

      • jorisw34 minutes ago
        The trend may be there but the article does nothing to back that up
    • metacritic1234 minutes ago
      If I didn't know any better, I would think this is a thinly veiled marketing piece by "Codeberg", a company that I never heard of until this headline.

      https://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

    • groundzeros201541 minutes ago
      It’s just a PR article to promote alternative
    • pjc504 hours ago
      You can just insert the word "some" as required.
      • jorisw4 hours ago
        Agreed, but the headline wouldn't travel nearly as well, if at all.

        > Why some Americans are switching to soy

        Would be more accurate than

        > Why Americans are switching to soy

        But wouldn't garner nearly the same amount of clicks.

        There is conscious exaggeration in omitting 'some' - a fluff-blog click-farm trope I don't enjoy seeing in the developer space.

        • pfisherman2 hours ago
          You could drop the verb clause? This would make the headline accurate while keeping it punchy.

          > why Americans switch to soy

          And

          > why developers switch to codeberg

          But the cynic in me thinks that the form of the headline that drastically overstates the the phenomenon in question by implication is something that has been workshopped and is commonly used because it turns something kind of boring into a spectacle.

    • usrbinbash2 hours ago
      > Proceeds to list but a handful of remotely meaningful repos

      I'm pretty sure, shortly after the motorized vehicle was made commercialy available, there were only a "handful of remotely meaningful" people and companies who stopped using horses.

      Do tell: How many horses are around on todays streets?

      • ryan_n37 minutes ago
        What exactly is the car equivalent in this analogy? Codeberg is not a car if you're saying GitHub is the horse. Just doesn't really make sense to compare the two like that...
      • woodruffw2 hours ago
        This is not an effective argument, given that these smaller services are uniformly retrograde in functionality.
        • subarctican hour ago
          Agreed, if there was something actually better to switch to then I'd be interested. But seems unlikely for that to happen now - it's easier than ever to build a new github, at least the app itself but i doubt someone's gonna bother with the business effort needed to actually build it up as a reliable, trustworthy option that you know will be around for a while, which is a process that takes years when you know you're going to get disrupted. It would probably have to be open source to get early adopters to use it but somehow be nicer to use than GitHub, and there's basically no money to be made
          • bigfishrunningan hour ago
            If only Github was reliable and trustworthy, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
    • juanibiapina3 hours ago
      Agreed. But if I comment on this, I'm promoting the article. What do I do?
    • karel-3d3 hours ago
      howtogeek is low-effort content mill, it's just upvoted here because of the headline, there is 0 actual effort in the article
      • gortok2 hours ago
        I don’t know if it’s because of the weasel words in the article or the extensive use of passive voice in the article, but this article feels in part like it’s AI generated.

        I am exhausted with having to figure out whether someone wrote something or let AI generate it for them.

        Reading articles like this has become less pleasurable since the advent of generative AI. There’s no feeling or heart in the article, and it’s one of those cases where I can read the headline, read the article, and wonder why I spent my time reading it.

    • close044 hours ago
      > a handful of remotely meaningful repos

      If there's a trend to leave a platform it won't start with the most entrenched users (largest repos).

      They acknowledge your concern in the article and their analysis does apply to those few who are leaving. But to be fair the title can be interpreted either way and the most reasonable read for anyone is "some of them are leaving". I'd find it clickbaity if they said "why developers are leaving en-masse" and then point out to the regular turnover. There's clearly a trend, what's not clear is if it gains momentum.

      • esperent3 hours ago
        > If there's a trend

        That's the point being made. Is there a trend? How do we know?

        There's always some repos moving between hosting providers for all kinds of reasons. The burden of proof is on the author here to show there's been an increase and they don't do that.

        • conartist63 hours ago
          The early adopters are leaving. These are the people that will blaze a trail that others follow.
          • esperent3 hours ago
            Which early adopters exactly? The most prominent example they gave is ghostty which has existed for just a couple of years, notwithstanding the fact that the owner published a spiel about how he's personally been using it for longer.
            • conartist62 hours ago
              An early adopter is someone who is first in line to try something new, usually because they're willing to build part of the new thing with their own hands. Just look at what projects are on any of the third-party forges, those are the early adopters of post-github tech.

              I would also be one of them, but I'm not actually off Github yet. That's because I haven't quiite finished building the thing I'm going to move to.

          • jorisw3 hours ago
            You could say that any time two distant psychos roll their Teslas off a rocky cliff and then exclaim "Why Tesla drivers are dumping their cars".

            And not provide any other meaningful data

            • conartist63 hours ago
              Rolling your car off a cliff isn't the same thing. This would be more like you want to drive your Tesla into the jungle so you build a road as you go.

              The key problem is not losing the cars but losing the road builders who are now no longer building roads that lead to you, but rather roads that lead away

    • latexr2 hours ago
      A better alternative might be along the lines of “why developers ditch GitHub for Codeberg and self-hosting alternatives”. That way it doesn’t commit to a trend or exaggerate the situation in your mind, instead making it clear it’s a report on “those X who do Y do it for these reasons”.
    • p-e-w4 hours ago
      I’ve seen titles like “Why top scientists are leaving the United States” where the article itself talked about A SINGLE RESEARCHER relocating to France.
      • embedding-shape3 hours ago
        If you're talking about the article featured on HN just day(s) ago, that was about a funding effort to get more researchers to move to France from the US, while they interviewed one specific individual. I think maybe you skipped the contents of that article (as it was in French) and instead just read the HN comments which misunderstood the article :)
        • p-e-w2 hours ago
          > If you're talking about the article featured on HN just day(s) ago

          I’m not.

          • embedding-shape2 hours ago
            Engaging :)

            Are you perhaps talking about "Top researchers leave USA for the Netherlands" then that was also on the HN frontpage just days ago?

            There been so many articles, surveys and papers about how scientists and researchers are leaving the US for the last 1-2 years, that it's hard to keep track. Still, I'm curious to understand what you actually read.

            • p-e-wan hour ago
              No, I’m talking about an article I saw maybe 10-12 months ago on a major news site, perhaps The Guardian.

              Individual reports of scientists leaving are meaningless without overall statistics. If there is a net outflow of scientists from the US, I’m not aware of it, and I certainly haven’t seen any actual statistical evidence for it.

    • illliillll4 hours ago
      [dead]
  • hambos224 hours ago
    It's been 9 months since I ditched Github.

    Currently I self-host Gitea [0], use its registry for Docker, NPM etc and act runners [1] for github actions alternative, everything secured under tailnet.

    I'm extremely satisfied with that setup. It is batteries included & fire and forget.

    Now I use Github only as backup by mirroring my self hosted repos.

    [0] https://gitea.com

    [1] https://docs.gitea.com/usage/actions/act-runner

    • permalac4 hours ago
      Similar with forgejo. I mirrored all gh then flipped the ones I was using the most. The biggest win was on running apple runners in my mac, so the free gh actions can do other stuff.
      • embedding-shape3 hours ago
        Getting better, more reliable and faster CI was such an underappreciated gain (from me at least) when moving to a self-hosted git platform. What used to take ~40 minutes end-to-end (from pushing commit to having release binary ready for three platforms) now takes less than 10 minutes, and seemingly that whole slowdown was causing me more headache that I think I was willing to admit at the time.
    • Jnr3 hours ago
      I similarly have been using Gitea for some years. I use it as my main forge and mirror to Github for discoverability and community reports and contributions.

      For public projects I have workflows that can publish and push containers to both Gitea and Github.

    • 3 hours ago
      undefined
    • BrandoElFollito3 hours ago
      I self host gitea for my personal-personal projects, the ones nobody will ever see.

      For the personal-opensource ones, I am on Github because this is where everyone is when I want to share/collaborate etc

    • onesandofgrain4 hours ago
      You use github as a backup, why bother self-hosting then?
      • hambos224 hours ago
        Github is an extra layer of backup, among normal backups.

        [edit]

        Notable reasons:

        - Github runners went oftenly out of space & they were slow. With self hosted runners I don't have these issues anymore because I control the hardware.

        Previously I was paying Docker Build Cloud/Depot for performance + Github Pro for extra minutes. Now it's zero cost, superb performance and unlimited minutes.

        - I have a centralized registry with private packages and images.

        - It's secure, I don't worry if I accidentally make a repo public or leak secrets. I control the access to it in network level.

        - I own everything, in case something goes nuts (eg lose access to GH) I'm safe.

      • stanac4 hours ago
        Not GP. Probably less dependencies on github, e.g. actions which sometimes don't work. This way github is a "dumb backup".

        I selfhost forgejo (gitea fork) on home sever (nuc), similar setup with tailscale. I was planning to setup git mirror on a remote VM for backup, but since I am the only one using it and have everything on dev laptop and remote backups of nuc server I didn't bother to do that (I know I still should).

        • wseqyrku3 hours ago
          > This way github is a "dumb backup"

          Eh? What GH department do you work in anyways? Training Data Sustainability?

          • stanac2 hours ago
            I don't understand your question. If I was working for GH would I be selfhosting forgejo?

            edit: If you think I sound like an LLM, I guess that is what happens when most of your interactions in English language are with LLMs.

            • 41 minutes ago
              undefined
            • wseqyrku2 hours ago
              > If I was working for GH would I be selfhosting forgejo?

              Why not. But you are saying github as a dumb backup makes sense when you do self-hosting. I don't think you really believe that.

            • jjgreen2 hours ago
              Given the state of it, you might well ...
              • stanac2 hours ago
                I missed the opportunity to add "you are absolutely right".
      • walrus014 hours ago
        Because the existence and continued normal operation of the primary is not dependent upon the capricious whims or instability of GitHub.
      • close044 hours ago
        The self hosting will still be there and working as expected no matter what GH does (fails... again, DMCAs the repo, bans the account, etc.). Self hosting isn't only about being the only one with the data, it's also for the independence aspect. GH as a backup doesn't hinder the independence. Network effects are strong and make a lot of developers still have a GH presence as a secondary platform.

        The evolution is when one can finally fully disconnect from GH, the main self hosted platform will continue to operate as if nothing happened.

        A migration can have a period of parallel running.

      • n4r94 hours ago
        [dead]
  • bitbasher4 minutes ago
    I have been self hosting my repositories on my own VPS using nothing but Git itself (you don't need to install anything else). Sharing write access is a bit of a pain, but I tend to work on things alone anyway.
  • benthecarman5 hours ago
    Our CI for our entire org at https://github.com/lightningdevkit was turned off for 3 weeks because an outside contributor who was wrongfully banned made a PR. After multiple appeals we received no explanation and was told it was a permanent ban until we made a stir on twitter. They sadly are no longer a good place to work.
  • My_Name3 hours ago
    As a developer who ditched Github and decided to self-host, there is only one reason. It's not technical difficulties, politics, nor AI. It's Microsoft. Like Apple, Facebook etc, I have a deep loathing for Microsoft and I want to remove as much of it from my life as I am able.

    I now run Git on a pi using Gitea and Forgejo. I can now upload files of a size unheard of in GitHub, Claude can make a PR by itself that I can diff, edit, then merge, and even with the mighty power of a single pi 3b+, it feels more responsive.

    • franktankbankan hour ago
      Microsoft is a mafia that sometimes produces code (poorly).
    • pbiggar2 hours ago
      Microsoft's human rights stain will take decades to wear off (just like Meta, Google, and Amazon).
      • surgical_firean hour ago
        Eh, the stain will only grow worse over time.

        They certainly are not doing anything to start bleaching it right now.

  • littlecranky674 hours ago
    Mostly because developers (me included) don't like to be told we are being laid off due to AI that was trained on our free open-source hobby projects.
    • xpctan hour ago
      It sucks, but that ship has sailed. I'm not sure how they'll handle the issue of most new repos being AI generated, if they continue using new code for training. If the world accepts LLMs as a valid method for license washing, I don't see how I can fight it.
    • litver3 hours ago
      how switching to an alternative like codeberg would prevent it? ti can be scraped as well
      • _heimdall2 hours ago
        Quite a few commentors here mentioned using gitea or one of it's forks on a private tailnet. That would mean it isn't publicly available and can't be scraped.
        • tigerlily18 minutes ago
          That's where it's all goin'. Private, outta sight. Keep the 'bots out, an' you keep the man out.
      • littlecranky672 hours ago
        But on GitHub, you agree explicitly that MS can use it. I would assume codeberg has any-scraping measures (not saying they are perfect, but better than knowing Microsoft can train with private repos).
      • grayhatter20 minutes ago
        It's a losing game to try to keep any FOSS code completely isolated from large scraping data sets. All you can do is never share it, or share it and eventually it'll get consumed by the machine.

        Spend your time making better software you and your friends can use... don't waste the time trying to stop others from making another painfully average codegen machine.

  • getcrunk2 hours ago
    Today GitHub blocked me until I turned Apple private relay off. I wasn’t logged in
  • Scaled4 hours ago
    For private code, it just feels safer to self host that -- ideally behind wireguard for an extra layer of security.

    For public code hosting, GitHub have banned too many people/projects for comfort. From security researchers to 18+ game devs, too many have been wrongfully banned.

  • 57016524004 hours ago
    + predatory pricing hikes for AI

    + not honouring yearly commitments plans

    • giancarlostoroan hour ago
      I'm still paying $4 a month for GitHub since I keep some repos private, which was down from the $8 a month or whatever before Microsoft acquired GitHub, are you saying there's a price hike for AI services or something else?
      • grim_io16 minutes ago
        In case you didn't know, you don't need to pay for private repos.
  • TekMol4 hours ago
    The appeal of GitHub for me is not only in the git hosting, but also in codespaces. It gives me:

        1: An easy way to start a VM
        2: A one-click solution to access it via private https access
    
    So for development, I dont need to dabble with spawning my own Hetzner VM or something. And I also do not have to dabble with getting a temporary domain and DNS so I can set up my own letsencrypt certs and point the domain to that VM.

    I can just write an index.html, execute "sudo python -m http.server 80", click the link that then opens to something.app.github.dev and test my new web application.

    This is why codespaces make starting a new product idea a thing of like 1 minute instead of 1 hour for me.

  • inkysigma3 hours ago
    Given more code hosting services, I wonder if we'll also see a corresponding increase in the number of alternative VCS or if git is legitimately very entrenched as a tool. I am just being a bit grouchy but I do wish there was more development of alternative VCSs. pijul at least looks cool even if I don't know if it scales well. Git LFS can be somewhat finicky to work with so maybe we'll see perforce like systems. It's obviously not the most practical thing to have a variety of very different VCS's and definitely a PITA to learn multiple tools but git does seem somewhat suboptimal given the number of anecdotes about people just re-cloning the repo. I was recently trying jj and it seemed to work well (excluding the lack of LFS support) so here's hoping.
  • qweqwe143 hours ago
    You'd be surprised how easy it is to self-host GitLab with Docker Compose, GitLab has an official "Omnibus" Docker image. No need to handicap yourself with Gitea/Forgejo/whatever, you can just use an industry-standard platform without much effort.

    Hardware requirements are nowhere close to high either.

    • badsectoracula44 minutes ago
      Spinning up a docker image with GitLab is easy indeed, but the installation is huge and you can feel it doing weird stuff (and it keeps doing "stuff" all the time even if nobody does anything - before you even bother to create extra users or repositories or whatever). The whole setup seems to be designed to be opaque.

      Forgejo is a single self-contained ~110MB binary (it contains all assets) you can drop anywhere and it'll just work - depending on your needs you most likely wont even need to bother with a DB server as it can use SQLite (my local install is doing that).

      Also FWIW personally i find Forgejo's UX much better compared to GitLab.

    • inigyou3 hours ago
      What makes GitLab "industry-standard" and Forgejo not?
      • ncphillips3 hours ago
        I don’t know if Gitlab is an industry standard, but I’ve never heard of Forgejo. I worked for a headless CMS company and the only three providers we ever had requests for were GitHub, Bitbucket, and Gitlab. Gitlab is big enough to be generally adopted by governments. I think it’s fair to say it’s at least a lot closer to being an industry standard then Forgejo.

        (Aside: I would likely never use Gitlab by choice, and would consider looking into Forgejo)

        • inigyou2 hours ago
          Probably because those are service providers and Forgejo is software. Same reason people ask for Microsoft account and Google account integration, but nobody ever asks for Linux account integration in your cloud software.
      • dijksterhuis2 hours ago
        one reason (among others) — compliance.

        a corporate/b2b saas environment without stuff like this is often a non starter.

        - SOC2

        - ISO/IEC 27001:2022

        - ISO/IEC 27017:2015

        - ISO/IEC 27018:2019

        - VPAT 508

        https://about.gitlab.com/security/

        no mention of these on the forejo site, so i can’t put “our internal software is all SOC2/ISO NUMBER compliant” as a bullet point on a slide deck.

        it is theatre. but it’s industry theatre.

      • Hendrikto3 hours ago
        Popularity.
    • dncornholio2 hours ago
      It's also easy without Docker. apt install gitlab-ee
  • kgeist4 hours ago
    We've been self-hosting GitLab for about a year now, and I don't remember it ever going down or being unavailable. We self-host almost everything else too (except for online meetings), and it's all been pretty stable as well. Some of the tools we self-host do go down occasionally, but it's usually just a matter of restarting the VM or adding more storage.
    • tovej3 hours ago
      Do you serve the instance on the public internet or on a VPN?

      I've been thinking about self-hosting myself, but for my purposes (open source), I'm worries about scrapers and other sources of DOS-like traffic.

      • kgeist2 hours ago
        VPN, accessible only from inside the corporate network
    • ncphillips3 hours ago
      Do you self host chat?
      • kgeist2 hours ago
        Yes, Rocket.Chat
  • srean4 hours ago
    Anyone has suggestions for hosting open source hobby projects managed with Mercurial.

    Loved Bitbucket's Mercurial offering. Looking for a replacement.

  • frabcus3 hours ago
    I'm trying sourcehut at the moment https://sourcehut.org/ and it seems really good - very simple and fast. And does seem to be free for hosting open source projects.

    Anyone else used it and have thoughts on it?

    • Hendrikto3 hours ago
      I really do not like that Drew (the owner and developer) is extremely dogmatic and political, and likes to get involved in what is and is jot allowed to be hosted on “his” forge.

      Imo, service providers should be neutral and get involved only as far as required by law.

      I would not trust Sourcehut. If Drew decides one day that he does not like you, your politics, or your industry, he will just cut you off. That is no foundation to build on.

    • bradley_taunt2 hours ago
      I use it as my main forge and could not be happier. It also seems to be the only forge that allows its web frontend to work with JS disabled. (That I am aware of)
    • notpushkin3 hours ago
      I really really love it but I just can’t get myself to embrace the email workflow. Maybe I’ll make a “pull requests for git.sr.ht” app one day!
  • rmnull4 hours ago
    Genuinely curious here for someone who has tried self hosting git and has found it a pita to maintain...i want to know what is it that devs are flocking to other platforms and how are we sure that they won't pull all the red card signals that github is said to pull off.
    • thyristan3 hours ago
      Have been self-hosting GitLab for my org a few years by now, with quite a few users (>800 atm). Updates are automatic via the GitLab Omnibus package repos. Once or twice per year some update requires intervention. Otherwise, nothing bad happens. Very happy so far.

      Biggest problem at the moment is that AI scrapers (curse them and their owners, pox be upon their houses!) sometimes bring things to a crawl. But nothing that a few firewall rules and anoubis won't solve.

      • greenavocado3 hours ago
        If you are running an org you should be putting all your private services behind netbird or tailscale at minimum. Zero public infra exposure beyond them.
        • thyristan3 hours ago
          The service isn't supposed to be private, some repos are intentionally public. And including all external collaborators in some VPN scheme is not possible at that scale.
          • greenavocado2 hours ago
            Sorry, I assumed you were running a typical corp
    • notpushkin3 hours ago
      Forgejo is fairly simple to run – way lighter and simpler than GitLab even. (GitLab is quite okay, too!)

      If you want a hosted service, go for Codeberg. It’s run by a German non-profit (so it’ll be hard to bite and switch OpenAI-style). Only free/open source projects are accepted, though.

  • intunderflow3 hours ago
    FYI that Codeberg is currently holding a vote to broadly ban projects written mostly using AI, so its not a neutral space for hosting your projects like GitHub: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253 https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116880003584050912
    • cmrdporcupinean hour ago
      I've been on Codeberg for my projects since September but will pull them if this happens. I see no definition of what "mostly using AI" means and refuse to be "punished" for the choice of tooling I use. The tone and content of the thread on Mastodon is absolutely toxic.

      I'd rather self-host than deal with the ambiguity and threats. Invariably from people who don't even make anything.

      I have plenty of concerns around "AI" and project governance and IP law. My projects are copyleft, I'm in favour of free software, bleah bleah bleah.

      But this just looks like pitchforks and mob behaviour.

      • badsectoracula5 minutes ago
        Same here, i've been on Codeberg since 2022 but if this passes, i'll most likely move my stuff elsewhere (my projects do not even have any AI code, i just dislike the idea of telling people what tools to use to make their own stuff).

        I dislike GitHub and i'm using a shared host for my website which wouldn't let me install something like Forgejo (this is by choice as i don't want to bother with sysadmin stuff, my site is almost all static HTML with only a couple PHP scripts for some minor tasks). So i guess i'll be migrating to GitLab, even though i do not really like its UX. Or maybe i'll use some other Forgejo instance like CodeFloe. URLs aside, migrating between Forgejo instances should be easy.

    • tovej3 hours ago
      Well, that's a good thing. Being "neutral" _is_ taking a side. It means you're taking an amoral stance even in big questions.

      Every organization has a stance. We're just become used to companies that take a stance of "as long as we get paid".

      • sunaookami2 hours ago
        No, being "neutral" is not "taking a side", that's the definition of the word. If you pre-moderate you open a whole can of worms. What will they ban next? This makes me not want to use Codeberg ever because it's not plannable.
    • misterderpie3 hours ago
      [dead]
  • ahmedehab_014 hours ago
    Extreme generalization, most devs aren't ditching GitHub yet.
    • VimEscapeArtist3 hours ago
      I like GitHub and I'm not going to ditch anything, but I have to admit it's currently one of the few MS products that still holds up. Curious what it'll look like in a few years. Just in case, I've already reserved my username on Codeberg :)
      • ahmedehab_0128 minutes ago
        Good idea to reserve a username early! I will do that too

        Anyway, it's not that I don't think GitHub has real issues under Microsoft, but I disagree with the title of the article, as devs are not leaving it in droves, yet.

  • ezoe5 hours ago
    I guess three nines availability is important.
    • onion2k4 hours ago
      Not even hitting 1 nine at the moment - https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/
      • jopsen4 hours ago
        I object!

        The dashboard clearly says 89.15% uptime!

        Who says nines need to be leading?

        • etdznots4 hours ago
          With enough precision in the time metric there are infinitely many nines!
          • DonHopkins4 hours ago
            Somewhere in 3.14159...% uptime there are as many nines as you like!
            • jjgreen2 hours ago
              ... assuming time is infinitely divisible. (Not a physicist, is that open?)
    • nottorp2 hours ago
      Lately, 9 out of 10 times i click on a github link to access the repo for $random_project_hosted_on_github I get a page saying that I've been rate limited. Even if it's my first click on a github link for the week.

      I guess THAT page has the three nines availability.

  • josefritzishere32 minutes ago
    Wouldn't it be nice to have a repo which AI couldn't access?
  • klaussilveira4 hours ago
    We ditched GitHub for self-hosted Forgejo and could not be happier. The experience is smoother, faster and distraction-free.
  • Cider99864 hours ago
    Why don't open source alternatives just copy the UI to make it easier to switch? Everyone knows the GitHub UI and it's intuitive. I'm happy to get more privacy and freedom, you don't have to make a worse design just to be different.

    Fluxer figured this out and they're the best discord replacement imo.

    https://fluxer.app/

    • nativeit44 minutes ago
      Forgejo is pretty close. Its runners are largely compatible with GH’s, and its issues, labels, tags, releases, wikis, packages, branch protection, secrets/envs, signing keys, repo permissions, etc. are all largely identical. I maintain a lot of mirrors and while none of my repos are particularly complex, I haven’t ever lost anything in a migration from GitHub to Forgejo.
    • braggerxyz3 hours ago
      Gitea did a lot of work over the last view releases (since 1.21 onwards) and are really GitHub-like nowadays UI-wise. Plus it is no SPA anymore and mostly SSR with Go templates + Htmx, its site performance lets GitHub cry by the wayside. Best descision ever to leave GitHub and selfhost Gitea with some runners in our own datacenter.
    • GoblinSlayer4 hours ago
      I think they have the same interface. Pull requests are renamed to merge requests, that's all the difference I see. Wait for github to reshuffle the ui in a redesign churn.
    • duskdozer4 hours ago
      Acquiring github users may not be their highest priority.
    • kelvinjps104 hours ago
      Inst gitea doing this?
    • tjpnz4 hours ago
      >it's intuitive

      Until you have to work with stale GHAS tool configurations, remember whether a project uses rulesets or branch settings or find that comment you wrote on a PR (and then learn that the new PR "experience" fucking hides them above a certain threshold). Those are just the issues I encounter in a typical week.

    • jorisw4 hours ago
      > copy the UI

      Good luck. The amount of features and screens on GitHub are vast aside from just those code / issues / PRs tabs.

    • allarm4 hours ago
      I’m not disputing how intuitive the GitHub interface is, but seriously, why is it so hard for technical professionals to set aside 10–20 minutes of their time to learn a new interface? Why has this even become an issue worth discussing?
  • feverzsj4 hours ago
    It's pretty much broken by AI. Not only your private repos are not private, but also the LLM will leak them.
  • virajk_31an hour ago
    Github getting bloated!? after MS?
  • fmind-dev4 hours ago
    It reminds me of the time where I deployed Gitea for self-hosting my git projects. In the end, nobody wanted to use it beyond myself. I would love to have a true federation protocol for Git, to decentralize the solution further.
  • Havoc4 hours ago
    Im just glad the wider world has finally snapped out of their GitHub mono culture trance.
  • ciefa3 hours ago
    I'm hosting my own Forgejo instance and it's great. Coolify as well :) It's fun!
  • latexr5 hours ago
    > One new user joins every second

    Do they? Or is it that a new account is opened every second? Because I’ve been seeing so many spammers and scammers that those numbers have to be skewed.

  • rob4 hours ago
    People are going to copy GitHub the way people copied Facebook… how is "Threads" doing again?
    • etdznots4 hours ago
      Not good but that’s unsurprising since Thread’s value proposition is indistinguishable from twitter’s. Mastadon and bluesky seem to have healthy userbases though
      • DonHopkins4 hours ago
        Now if only the leader of Github would make Nazi salutes in public, regularly piss his pants due to frequent ketamine abuse, and cancel foreign aid causing 14 million brown children and other undesirable riff-raff to die by 2030, then maybe people would be as compelled to cancel Github as Twitter.
  • BrenBarn4 hours ago
    So sad to see that no articles about this even mention Mercurial. This is a golden opportunity for Hg providers to shine.
    • signa114 hours ago
      this not a `git` failure per se...
      • BrenBarn4 hours ago
        Yes, but the thing is just that if people are looking around for new providers it's an opportunity for alternative systems to attract attention and users.
        • navigate83104 hours ago
          I understand what you convey, however, users are tired of the git GUI, not git itself.
    • srean4 hours ago
      I miss Bitbucket's Mercurial offering.
      • DonHopkins3 hours ago
        But Github is already fully volatile, capricious, fickle, erratic, unpredictable, variable, inconsistent, changeable, unstable, whimsical, protean, fluid, and a polluting poisonous room temperature liquid heavy metal, so why would you also need mercurial?
  • iamwil4 hours ago
    Anyone tried tangle as a replacement? Verdict?
  • akimbostrawman2 hours ago
    Switching from one centralized git repository to another that also injects political messaging into URLs without consents.
    • RedCinnabar39 minutes ago
      What do you mean by that? Are you referring to Codeberg? Out the frying pan straight to the fire...
  • j452 hours ago
    Github for open source was always my favourite part of it.

    Github for private repos has long had security issues, every time a serious issue announced it makes me wonder how long it's quietly existed and been exploited, and how many other holes are currently exploited that aren't well known.

    Before github, people hosted their own repos all the time. Learning about alternatives, even if they aren't for you in all cases, is still worth it.

    Has anyone had any issues with codeberg or other alternatives?

  • onesandofgrain4 hours ago
    self-hosted gitea/forgejo is still better
  • fragmede4 hours ago
    No affiliation, but http://code.storage gets my vote.
  • submeta2 hours ago
    For those who moved away from GitHub: do you miss the social/discovery side of it?

    I mean things like comments on issues/PRs, stars, followers, finding existing repos, seeing which projects are popular, and getting drive-by contributions.

    Or does that matter less than I imagine once you self-host and mirror public repos back to GitHub/Codeberg?

    • janeway2 hours ago
      I used to love browsing GitHub Explore Trending but in the last two years it is almost exclusively AI apps that are slight improvement on the previous trending page of AI apps.

      GitHub explore could be way more interesting with a simple filter algorithm.

  • Madmallard4 hours ago
    I think and hope we see a lot more of this before the adversarial imperative returns from the company side.

    People using Claude Fable to just make replacements for disgustingly enshittified software. We desperately need browser extensions to help make websites less scummy across the board as well.

  • AlanAzarkin13 minutes ago
    [flagged]
  • ahk-dev16 minutes ago
    [flagged]
  • Capitanai4 hours ago
    [flagged]
  • glub1030112 hours ago
    [dead]
  • takaki23 hours ago
    [flagged]
  • antonyragleap4 hours ago
    [flagged]
  • qroole5 hours ago
    [flagged]
  • saltanatt2 hours ago
    [dead]
  • dachworker3 hours ago
    [dead]
  • fraktl31 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • cryo325 hours ago
    I've ditched Github for all personal stuff. I just keep my repositories offline. I have a reliable backup process so what's the point in pushing it there? I don't give a shit about public profile, stars or any of that gamified crap and I certainly don't trust them.
  • sneak5 hours ago
    Did we all forget that GitHub’s military-industrial complex owners over at Microsoft made sure to send the “business as usual” signal to the USG when they refused to stop helping ICE violate human rights en masse?

    This was during the kidnap-and-rape-kids-in-cages days and before they started a general policy of kidnapping and/or summarily executing law-abiding citizens in the street. There are more reasons now to disassociate with collaborators with the US federal government than ever. I guess I could say I dropped GitHub before it was cool?

    https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/github-and-us...

    https://github.com/sneak

    Microsoft is a morally bankrupt and despicable organization, just like Meta, Amazon, and modern Google and Apple. Anyone still doing ongoing business with them in 2026 is, imho, a fool.

    • youre-wrong34 hours ago
      Can’t go a day without propaganda on HN.
      • inigyou3 hours ago
        Everything is propaganda, including your comment and this one.
        • DonHopkins3 hours ago
          Then stop posting artisnal human generated ai slop! The LLMs can't get a word in edgewise. ;)
    • graemep4 hours ago
      > Anyone still doing ongoing business with them in 2026 is, imho, a fool.

      So that would be almost everyone.

    • pferde2 hours ago
      I mean, I poisoned and then deleted my GH account the day Microsoft acquisition was confirmed, because it was obvious where it's heading.
    • DonHopkins3 hours ago
      [Slow clap... building to thunderous applause. Standing ovation.]

      I say! Well done! Bravo! Bravo! Encore! Encore!

      Now do a foaming-at-the-mouth diatribe about how predatory, unethical libertarian crypto-scamming shills such as yourself and Trump are crashing the economy while violently tearing society apart into a tiny oligarchy and widespread poverty. Extra points for plugging your latest sociopathic crypto scam as the final solution.

      • sneak32 minutes ago
        Don, you’ve got me wrong. I’d love to have a civil discussion with you to clear up your misconceptions.

        My email and phone number’s in my profile. Do please get in touch.

      • an hour ago
        undefined