Selfhosted
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
-
No low-effort posts. This is subjective and will largely be determined by the community member reports.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
view the rest of the comments
Codeberg, I can recommend
Isnt codeberg centralized? I worry it will run into the same issue as github
Codeberg is supporting forgejo which Codeberg is built on. Forgejo is ActivityPub powered git repositories. So imagine regular git, but everyone can have their own repos on their own sites and you can still interact with each other. So yes, Codeberg is centealized FOR NOW. But they're working on opening it up to EVERYONE to run their own and be able to access all the repos you use over the Fediverse.
The protocol extension is ForgeFed and it’s still a work in progress afaik
The issue tracker is on Codeberg.
Forgejo is only one of the implementations and not the reference implementation.
It will also be more general:
Will it be possible to have decentralized pull requests? Like I open a PR on my site, my friend reviews my PR on his site, and I get his reviews on my site?
That's the plan, but it's still far away
That's nice
This was always baked into basic git from the beginning if you review your code in E-Mail chains or mailing lists.
So not really baked in at all then?
why wouldn't it be? you can send emails from web uis too. you can share diffs however you desire. you can have a remote for each developer, and push/pull changes to each other. the github mindset kind of ruined the resilience and distributedness of git: one central remote, one account authority, one central place where discussing MRs... ever forgejo is not as good as decentralized git: what's a forgejo identity?
meanwhile git has been decentralized and distributed since day one, linux is still developed in a decentralized and distributed way and forgepub is just not ready and not even close.
sending emails with an attached diff to many ppl is too hard? make a nice offline gui doing that and we're distributed. github was a psyop to make us un-learn git, making it better is silly, like wasting decades searching for "good cigarettes"
Okay, but by definition none of that is "baked into" git...
E-Mail workflow is baked in
git send-emailcan directly send an email and every committer is identified by a mail address.Oh, well there you go. Looks like email PRs are baked into git.
That's nowhere near as convenient as current web based PR.
That sounds like the dream.
Just like bluesky is centralised "for now" i.e. forever
Except bluesky is funded by VC and they created their own protocol and federation design.
Codeberg is an open source repo only place, they're building in AP, they have monthly updates. So nothing like Bluesky.
But I understand the trepidation.
Even if, switching your used repo hosting service is a matter of minutes if you're using git. You register on the other site, add your SSH key, update the remote URL of your repository which is just a
git remote set-url origin <new url>and then hitgit push, probably with something like--forceor another option, kinda forgot the exact name. So that's something you could easily automate in like 10 lines of bash script for all your repositories.It's super hard to "trap" people in something like github because git is so open and decentralized. Switching is super easy. Most people who stay on github or gitlab do it because they need the CI/CD pipelines or because they're lazy and/or stupid.
When I read this discussion on HackerNews they act like they're trapped and it would require moving the sun and the earth to switch over.
Yeah sounds like a big nothingburger to me. If you just use gitlab for private projects with basic pushing and pulling without any fancy gitlab features, switching is a matter of minutes.
Now, if you've built your entire company setup around gitlab and use everything they offer, yeah switching is gonna be a lot harder and will require more preparation. However, it's not impossible in the slightest. Even a large corporation with hundreds of developers could make a switch within 2 weeks.
And the open issues, tasks and pull requests?
Right.
Those aren't git features, those are features provided by surrounding tooling, not git itself, so I didn't really consider them. I also never used them in private projects.
However, issues you can migrate easiely. I've seen tools out there that copy the issue content from github and to somewhere new. The creator of that issue is then a bot user or something, but the issue is still there and can be worked on. On github, the bot will leave a message that this issue is now handled somewhere else and closes it. Done.
Pull requests are also simple, you just merge them all. I haven't seen a lot of projects with hundreds of open pull requests that were lying there for weeks or months. Now yes, you will lose the comments and history of the pull request itself, but I don't think that's very important.
Tasks I don't know. I've never used them and don't even know what they do. If it's just a glorified kanban board with plenty of cards that say "Do X", you can just copy paste them to your new tool because there's nothing technical about them.
Those are all part of the forge, not git.
The 2 are very different things.
And what kind of service is gitlab, which we are discussing here, or github which was brought up in the comment, or codeberg?
They are forges.
I think the comment of migrating git, was more for smaller and maybe private projects. Not large collaborations. So only the git part, not the forge part.
It’s funny coming from the Plex thread into this; ~100% of people who keep using Plex do so because it’s centralised and it makes sharing their library with their network of family and friends easier.
The truth is; a lot of us feel like we need more internet accounts about as much as we need genital warts. Part of the reason GitHub got successful was the fact that you only needed to register once and you had access to fork and PR all the repos on there.
Decentralisation is great for self hosting things for, well, yourself and your household, but it’s got hefty downsides. Account creation is a friction point for others to join and collab.
You are confusing decentralized and fragmented (or self hosted). The promise of fragmented software (like Lemmy) is that there are many instances but an agreed upon protocol. You create one account on one site and then use it to pull and push data to any other site that uses the same communication protocol. Like you and I for example. You created an account on lemmy.zip, I created one on lemmy.world, and we are both discussing a post created by a user on lemmy.nocturnal.garden (an instance I have never heard of).
The problem is, I have an account on lemmy.world but switched off during a time it had major problems with downtime and broken images. When I wanted to switch to another provider, my account was not portable. I hadn’t posted or commented an overwhelming amount, but it’s still not associated with this account.
So let’s say someone creates a federated Git hosting platform and feature matches GitHub with Actions/CI etc, so there’s no reason not to switch. Let’s then say git.world starts acting up, but you can create an account on git.zip instead.
Now you have given up your commit history and any commits you make from your git.zip account is not neatly linked with your git.world account.
I’m sure this problem can be solved, but it’s vastly more important for it to be solved before federated Git hosting can replace the “security” of GitHub. We do have to consider the fact that some people point to their GitHub profile when job searching, so git contributions and commit history is more valuable than Lemmy posts.
At least with federation a single account gets you access to all the systems. So a truly federated git system would be great.
Its centralized, but they (forgejo, the underlying software) are building on standards wherever possible so it should be easy enough to move things around. I also don't really see them breaking bad anytime soon, at some point you have stop worrying and start to build shit.
It is but they're working on federation for forgejo (which powers Codeberg).
Oh sorry, I might have misunderstood your question. Yes, Codeberg is centralised, but it is registered at a public e.V. in Germany making it more open (not a company).
But then you could use what they use, Forgejo to self host.
Or Gittea as suggested by somebody else.