I always wonder what GitHub has that Codeberg doesn't. It's a shame this isn't as popular. It seems like developers, of all people, are willingly letting their code be AI piggybacked.
If I was sufficiently motivated to leave GH for such idealistic reasons, it wouldn't be worth moving to another third-party host. That just means a few years later there will be some new idealistic reason to leave the new host, and I'll have to make the effort of switching all over again. If I ever leave GH, it'll be to self-hosting.
You're missing the point. We want AI to piggyback on our open source code, because then thousands of developers around the world can piggyback on that AI. That AI is a boon for users, and is just as useful as documentation and a discussion forum.
Why would any adult give so much power to a few people over their project for what would be a few $$ at most in GitHub if not free.
The idea that I would choose a company because is from Europe instead of America, is kinda insane to be honest, I'm from Spain, Europe and my only peeve with products from America is that sometimes the cost to send products here is a bit too much for products like kinesis, aeron, books from nostarch, etc.
Good for Codeberg for giving the hosting service for free to FOSS projects, but there is no way I'm giving so much power to a few volunteers over my projects.
I wish GitHub would implement a feature to hide/private the projects I follow/star, that's the only thing I miss in GitHub.
Do we know the project which is the 300k project as I was making a pages and even a video on how to make codeberg pages about an hour ago and this post is 41 minutes ago and I would be mad in joy lol
I'm wondering, now almost three years in after the Forgejo/Gitea fork, which side of the fork ended up better. Both still seem very active with thousands of commits each.
I run a Gitea server (since long before the fork, constantly updated) that handles issues, pull requests, signed commits, CI/CD, actions, and even serves my containers and packages. It's been amazing.
Of course Forgejo can do the same. For those who’ve followed both projects closely — which fork would you say has come out ahead? Codeberg being Forgejo's SaaS offering likely gives them more resources, but I also wonder if that means their priorities lean more toward SaaS than self-hosting.
> their priorities lean more toward SaaS than self-hosting
It was FUD when the fork was announced, it is FUD now. Look at commercial images and what differentiates them from MIT — it's pretty much just SAML and not much else. Their actual development policy is "you pay us for the feature you need — we build it under MIT and ship for everyone"; their collaboration with Blender is the most prominent example of this that I know of.
I've also been wondering whether to jump ship, and have been going by comparing release notes — how many features were shipped within the same period of time, which bugs were fixed, etc. I've seen no reason to migrate, Gitea continues to advance faster, even though Forgejo copies some of their commits that still apply relatively easily.
Forget about commit counts, issues closed, and other artificial metrics — they're significantly inflated on Forgejo's side by heavy use of bots (like bumping dependencies) and merge commits (which Gitea development process doesn't use). Look at release notes.
I self-host forgejo but still want a way to publish open-source. I've been using GitHub for this and didn't realize that codeberg.org was an option. Glad to see them getting the press.
18 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 31.4 ms ] threadThe idea that I would choose a company because is from Europe instead of America, is kinda insane to be honest, I'm from Spain, Europe and my only peeve with products from America is that sometimes the cost to send products here is a bit too much for products like kinesis, aeron, books from nostarch, etc.
Good for Codeberg for giving the hosting service for free to FOSS projects, but there is no way I'm giving so much power to a few volunteers over my projects.
I wish GitHub would implement a feature to hide/private the projects I follow/star, that's the only thing I miss in GitHub.
That said, what can codeberg really protect against if they’re just a European take on GitHub?
[1] https://forgefed.org/
I run a Gitea server (since long before the fork, constantly updated) that handles issues, pull requests, signed commits, CI/CD, actions, and even serves my containers and packages. It's been amazing.
Of course Forgejo can do the same. For those who’ve followed both projects closely — which fork would you say has come out ahead? Codeberg being Forgejo's SaaS offering likely gives them more resources, but I also wonder if that means their priorities lean more toward SaaS than self-hosting.
It was FUD when the fork was announced, it is FUD now. Look at commercial images and what differentiates them from MIT — it's pretty much just SAML and not much else. Their actual development policy is "you pay us for the feature you need — we build it under MIT and ship for everyone"; their collaboration with Blender is the most prominent example of this that I know of.
I've also been wondering whether to jump ship, and have been going by comparing release notes — how many features were shipped within the same period of time, which bugs were fixed, etc. I've seen no reason to migrate, Gitea continues to advance faster, even though Forgejo copies some of their commits that still apply relatively easily.
Forget about commit counts, issues closed, and other artificial metrics — they're significantly inflated on Forgejo's side by heavy use of bots (like bumping dependencies) and merge commits (which Gitea development process doesn't use). Look at release notes.
the interface is far more responsive, despite each click loading a new page (vs. the disaster than is react)
and it is run by a charity, so it will never enshittify
which GitHub is doing more and more with each passing day (no I don't want your shit "AI", not now, not ever)