Microslop does it again! But it will take much more than this for people to leave GitHub. Someone will have to start making private repositories public to show that GitHub can't be trusted for companies to leave. And someone will have to insert malware into GitHub releases from inside the system to make opensource people leave.

[–] lastweakness@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Codeberg is constantly 504ing and private repos aren't encouraged. Sourcehut is paid. GitLab is GitLab. So where are people leaving to?

[–] SleepyPie@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Self hosting Forgejo

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 1 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

I'm just reading "I don't want to leave, whatever happens". There's nothing I can say that you will agree with, so we might as well not waste that energy.

[–] lastweakness@lemmy.world 7 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I have no idea why you would assume that. You need to stop thinking in binaries and be pragmatic. All my stuff is already on self-hosted Forgejo. So personally, I'm fine for now.

But genuinely, where am I supposed to tell people to host their stuff? When a college student tells me they want to host their first project somewhere, what is an actually viable answer at this point? My answer would have been Codeberg if not for the 504s, but I'm a bit lost now since that became a daily occurrence, so tell me yours.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I use codeberg too and am not experiencing the problems you have, but it might be a location thing.

Otherwise, Gitlab has been good to me. Despite their descent into AI and rejection of federation, they have are still a better than GitHub. The CI is still light years ahead of GitHub Actions. What's your beef with Github?

Why are you referencing students BTW? Are you a professor? Do you have any pull? Then you should get your university to setup a forgejo instance and CI so that students don't have to even question it. Make them put their assignments on the forgejo instance on one semester, the next semester on gitlab, and the next on radicle or have a course where they get access to a VM and have to setup and host a soueceforge of their choosing. You can assign a subdomain of the uni to them and help them setup SSL certs via a DNS or HTTP challenge.

Otherwise, the easiest thing to do is let them use radicle. They don't have to host a thing and the repos will be distributed across the radicle network, accessible from nearly anywhere.

[–] lastweakness@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I don't know how you've not encountered a 504 yet if you're actively using Codeberg. It's a known issue with a lot of impact.

GitLab's CI might be better but otherwise, the interface is pretty horrible and no one I know wants to have anything to do with it. I understand that can be subjective but everyone I've suggested it to in the past has come back with the same thoughts.

I remember trying radicle in its early days and having issues. Hopefully by now they've been resolved. Will check them out again.

I'm not a professor but I'm asked often for advice by students. Both due to open source contributions and also due to friends.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 1 points 5 hours ago

Since my repos are spread across multiple instances, I deal won codeberg only intermittently and it looks like the 504s are about 2-3 weeks old. Not good, but just outside of the time I got busy in a repo that's not on codeberg.

As for gitlab's interface, I guess it's like switching from new reddit to lemmy, it's different and you babe to get used to it. While quitting Github, I actually came to really appreciate Gitlab's interface. It wasn't easy at the beginning, but now I actually prefer it to GitHub's interface.

If the people you asked are longtime Github users and only use or used Gitlab a few times, I'm not surprised they don't like it.

Radicle is better than it was when I first tried it. For a person who doesn't like the CLI, it's probably utterly horrific, but feature-wise, it's a distributed sourceforge. They still have a ways to go:

no notifications for anything like patches or comments
no CI
web interface is read-only
electron GUI is... Electron but makes its usage sane(r) but I tested that long ago
doesn't support huge repos e.g >1GB and it just won't distribute

But if the goal is just to publish code and have a distributed backup, radicle is very good at that.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I already left for codeberg, but I want another one. What else is out there? And don't say self host, life's too short for that.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 0 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Why did you leave codeberg, let's start with that. What is it you're looking for?

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Comment says "left for" codeberg so I'm assuming they use it but want another place to host private repos

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 1 points 2 hours ago

Woops, missed the "for".

[–] Godort@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Someone will have to start making private repositories public to show that GitHub can't be trusted for companies to leave.

What if it's private, but used as training data for copilot, and can only be accessed publicly through prompt injection?

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 5 points 1 day ago

Bad, but not the same, IMO. Microslop could shove it under the rug as a glitch. Oh wait... they would do that in this case too. Yeah, maybe it'd have to be more severe than that, but I don't know what's more severe to a private company than getting their IP leaked because of slopcoding.

[–] Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And someone will have to insert malware into GitHub releases from inside the system to make opensource people leave.

And even that wouldn't be enough for some of them, given SourceForge's continued existence.

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 11 points 1 day ago

You're unfortunately right. Some people just have picked a side and won't budge.

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

As someone who has never really used github (I have for a few minor FOSS contributions... very short touchpoints) but use self hosted git...

.. what is github even fucking offering???

From my naive perspective it's a light touch web ui on git?

I don't understand what gravity well it provides... what escape velocity is required to bail on it.

From my naive perspective, I'd have as much allegiance to ot as I would be to an ftp server. Not happy? NP, I'll take 17 minutes to move to 1 of 9999999 other equivalent services, or take 95 minutes to self host a functional equivalent.

[–] psycotica0@lemmy.ca 6 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

For an honest answer, from an Open Source perspective, it's mostly auth, profiles, and discoverability.

Presuming I have a GitHub account, when I encounter a library or tool or something that's hosted on GitHub that means I can fork it, make issues, comment on issues, make pull requests from my fork to upstream tied to issues, and generally have seamless interaction with any and all software on GitHub.

Or, if I have my account added to a project, then I can also merge PRs and push to master and be a maintainer of that software without any friction.

When I see that software is hosted on KDE's thing it's like "Ugh". I have to login to that, and create a profile for that, and then figure out how tickets work there, and how do I contribute to that. It's enough to just not, most of the time. And maybe I do that for kdenlive. Then I have a bug for Gimp. Okay, what the heck do they use? Is that another login? How do I contribute over there? Is registration even open? Okay guix, oh boy a mailing list. Do I want to subscribe to a dev mailing list just to submit a 2 line patch? I think I'll just not... I'm sure someone else will fix it eventually......

So besides all that, some people like their GitHub profile, and like that people can see all the things they've contributed to from one spot. That's why it's often linked on resumes, but beyond that there's also a kind of cultural cachet to having a diverse and positive profile, should someone look. If someone is a maintainer of a repo with a lot of stars, that might tell you they're "important" even if you don't know why. Because maybe you're a JS programmer, but this person seems to be big in the Java community, because they seem to maintain a few high profile java libraries.

And then lastly, it's sometimes useful as a shortcut in searching. "Source code" is kind of a useless term for searching, so if I search "ruby Ledger file library" I'm more likely to get some docs or a rubygems page, but if I search "ruby Ledger file GitHub" I'm probably going to get what I actually want, which is a readme and a git uri I can clone and play around with. Or a web view of the source I can search through to debug something without cloning. At least assuming that is what I want, it depends on what my goals are, but it's useful often enough that I do it sometimes as a way of jumping to the source part.

I'm typically anti-centralization, and anti-microsoft, and if we all move away from GitHub I'm sure I'll live, but this is why I like it despite its problems. And sometimes I want a webview of file contents, with search, without cloning, so sue me 😛

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

Forgejo has federation, which could remove a lot of the friction you describe with more adoption on the network. Hopefully with Github becoming a mess, more people will go on there

[–] NewOldGuard@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 day ago

There is a lot offered on the enterprise side. My company uses GH Actions for CI/CD, uses GitHub for OAUTH, it hosts our git LFS server, and it's where the slop lovers in the executive office get their copilot subscription. That doesn't cover half of it really, but it's a lot more than a git forge. I despise it nonetheless and think all of these use cases have better tools available