Initially, LinkedIn was just another site where you could find jobs. It was simple to use, simple to connect with others; it even had some friendly groups with meaningful discussions.
And then it gained monopoly as the “sole” professional network where you could actually land a job. If you are not on LinkedIn now, you are quite invisible in the job market. Recruiters are concentrated there, even if they have to pay extremely high prices for premium accounts. The site is horrible now: a social network in disguise, toxic and boring influencers, and a lot of noise and bloated interface to explore.
When Google decided to close their code.google.com, GitHub filled a void. It was a simple site powered by git (not by svn or CVS), and most of the major open-source projects migrated there. The interface was simple, and everything was perfect. And then something changed.
GitHub UI started to bloat, all kinds of “features” nobody asked for were implemented, and then the site became a SaaS. Now Microsoft hosts the bulk of open-source projects the world has to offer. GitHub has become a monopoly. If you don’t keep your code there, chances are people won’t notice your side projects. This bothers me.
Rant over. I hate internet monopolies.
At least, there’s Codeberg, run by a German nonprofit, who’s challenging the monopoly. It is aimed exclusively for FOSS projects, private repositories are forbidden. They are running Forgejo as their bloat-free software forge server.
Now, I think every Web2 website must be operated by a nonprofit.
Overall codeberg has been pretty decent, it’s where the Kbin project is located. There’s been a few outages over the last few weeks but overall it’s pretty good.
Github has had some outages recently too. Codeberg’s recent outage was particularly bad, but not serious.
Yes, I also experienced some outages and thus delayed pushing (which made me re-think again of overusing git submodules).
Nevertheless, I migrated my works from my server and Github to Codeberg recently.
wasn’t codeberg using gitea? not it says powered by forgejo
Gitea was taken over by a for-profit company, Forgejo is a fork by the previous maintainers to continue it fully FOSS without any of the shenanigans. See also their FAQ.
Forgejo is Codeberg’s fork of Gitea.
Forgejo is apparently a fork of Gitea.
Codeberg has private repos
Section 2.1.2 of Codeberg Terms of Service says:
Private repositories are only allowed for things required for FLOSS projects, like storing secrets, team-internal discussions or hiding projects from the public until they’re ready for usage and/or contribution. They are also allowed for really small & personal stuff like your journal, config files, ideas or notes, but explicitly not as a personal cloud or media storage.
So it’s not for proprietary projects anyway.
Github has always had being a job site be it’s secondary feature.
Except that it has a slightly higher bar of entry to recruiters and recruitment bots spreading toxic positivity, and anyone asking for a job is able to prove (at least some of) their value by showing off their code and how they participate publically in other repos (if at all).
Has GitHub actually done anything negative? Your comments really just sound like fear mongering, I can’t see any actual issues.
What is the bloat you’re referring to? The UI is clean and simple. Navigating and searching code is intuitive. The issue tracker is basic but reliable. Releases are clear. GitHub Actions are complex but featureful and incredibly useful. GitHub Packages are basic but useful. GitHub Copilot is damn impressive.
They scanned open source repos and made an LLM out of it. Now companies can profit from open source code without contributing back to the ecosystem. The only contribution they make is the money they pay to Microsoft for Copilot. So Microsoft is profiting from OSS code and stifling its community.
Does this outweigh the free hosting of the code? IDK
Now companies can profit from open source code without contributing back to the ecosystem.
They could literally always do that. Unless they changed the software, most open source licenses required nothing but maybe a mention of attribution (which no one will ever read). And some don’t even require that. They could also always use FOSS tools to develop software without contributing anything back. How is Copilot different from that?
And honestly, Copilot is pretty amazing for devs. Why would I care that Microsoft profits off it when it benefits us too? While I love FOSS and all else equal would choose it every time, it’s unreasonable to expect everything to be free and open source. People have to make a living somehow and open source rarely pays the bills.
I’m not sure how Microsoft is stifling the community either. They seem to have been running GitHub great and they’ve made a lot of great dev tools in recent years. I used to absolutely loath Microsoft, but these days they’re mostly alright in my book (at least from a developer PoV). Stuff like how they’ve handled GitHub, creation of WSL, VS Code, etc have all been great.
yeah mostly (apart from big corporate and all the related issues), most of the stuff feels a little bit bulky/sluggy because of the overuse of web-technology (say Teams or VS Code (while being a great editor there are much faster ones)).
But Github itself is quite convenient for me to use for open source (and for work at that)…
I agree with the other comment. It’s Open source after all, they could’ve just crawled the web otherwise.
Private repos on the other hand is a different story.
I see two points in your argument:
Everything becoming a social network
People working at tech companies have to justify their salary somehow and this is low hanging fruit for adding ‘features’ as all people feel some need for connection. Feeling that a place is alive with other people will motivate your more to engage with it, rather than say, your own Git hosted server. I don’t mind the social features added to GitHub as long as they don’t take the main stage, like it did in the LinkedIn transformation.
GitHub monopoly of open source
GitHub has for most of the time been the main place for open source. I don’t see a monopoly as necessarily bad as long as it remains focused on some values other than profit. I would rather have one big Wikipedia than a shitload of small fractured Wikipedias. Can it become a problem going forward, like it did with Reddit? Definitely, but I am cautiously optimistic. And in the worst case, git is heavily decentralized by design so you’re one
git remote add && git pushaway from moving. Migrating issues would be a bit more of a hassle, but surely there are solutions. And CI is not easily portable, but not a huge amount of work to convert to other formats.Codeberg can automatically migrate code and issues from Github using a personal access token iirc.
Github packages and especially CI/CD are the real vendor locking antifeatures. All of the actions and scripts that your app/company depends on to run are completely locked to github.
Fwiw, gitea has compatible actions. Not sure how compatible, though.
I can run GitHub workflows directly on my machine with ACT, I’m sure you could run that on your own private CI if you needed too. It’s not perfect, but if a lot of people started wanting to migrate I’m sure it could get better.
Doesn’t Codeberg say it’s mostly for FOSS? They say private repos are only allowed for really small things like note keeping, so it wouldn’t be right to just move everything there from GitHub.
monopoly: the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
GitHub is not a monopoly: it has competition. If you’re upset about it’s market share, switch to GitLab, Bitbucket, or host your own instance. If you’re upset about people not being aware of the other options, be an advocate and spread awareness of the alternatives.
It’s not a monopoly, but it’s still an oversized influence on the market. I think the poster is arguing that: when have you heard a recruiter ask you for your bitbucket account? But they will look at github.
I’ve put my gitlab link in my resume and it has never had anyone spark a question. Usually the recruiter isn’t concerned with it saying “github” so much as you try to answer it with something instead of a blank stare / left on read.
I’m very split between Github (currently) providing a really nice interface/collection/way to access all kinds of open source projects and the obvious ‘out-of-control centralisation’ by the mega corp Microsoft.
It definitely got a little bit bloated the last years, but I still think it has a generally nice interface (browse code/review stuff, simple issue/PR system, simple way for CI via actions etc.).
But I really hope something like https://forgefed.org/ takes off someday, I feel like if the barriers are much lower to get onto a different network with the same user (without registering etc.) decentralisation can lead to more innovation in this space (management of all the stuff that Git doesn’t manage itself, like issues, PRs etc.).
The beauty of Git though is that it’s decentralized, so you can just mirror it on Github while mainly using a different platform. If you want a bigger userbase interacting/contributing with your project you’ll allow PRs and issues there and if not just add a link to the README that points to the platform you’re using…
Bro that occurred years ago. Github and linkedin are both owned by Microsoft. It is a funnel from LinkedIn recruitment requiring Github requirements from the recruiters. Unfortunately nobody who is under 30 years old saw these dumb tools getting ripped off.
No, I don’t see how GitHub it turning into LinkedIn. Everything you said are definitely new things GitHub is doing but none of them are things LinkedIn does. LinkedIn is pretty much just Facebook with career applications built-in.
I am not saying they are competing on the same niche. I am saying both sites started well, and they transformed into something worse, profiting by their monopoly on their specific markets.
It sounds like your issue is with capitalism rather than GitHub. The same logic is applicable to many corporations.
Honestly, as others have mentioned, I don’t agree its bloated. If anything, its actually missing a few features (like the ability to bulk change many repos with the same issue tags). Also, I like some of the new updates that are being released.
It doesn’t run slowly in ANY way.
Furthermore, Sourceforge used to be the monopoly, and honestly, that was FAR more bloated. Projects will be found on any site, if its interesting. I don’t remember ever searching for projects explicitly using Github search (I only use Google). A good project will show up anywhere.
Well I feel like all the “modern” SPA stuff that got recently added, certainly adds “some” kind of bloat on top, it’s not as snappy anymore as it once was, but I think most of the stuff is improving QoL, so I think it’s reasonable…
I just host my own instance of Gitea.
This is the way.
I’d rather not have to register on every individuals instance for every project, for bug reporting, discussion, or simple changes.
On github it’s easy for me to contribute and communicate. On other platforms, not.
There’s work to have instances federate, similar to how Mastodon or Lemmy work. And the admin could also enable Oauth2 login with GitHub and GitLab for easier access.
For reference, I think you want something like this: https://forgefed.org/
I wouldn’t say it’s a new LinkedIn, but it’s definitely a defacto monopolio. It pains be that Cargo (the official rust packaging system) is so integrated with it. My own personal hobby projects are self-hosted on a gittea instance right now, but I still have a github account to contribute to a friend of mine’s project which is, sadly, hosted there.
Its not anymore, the new sparse index protocol is not using github.
I was pressured into creating a profile in Linkedin and publish whatever shitty codes I could get on just so I could apply for interviews (which never got past round one). It’s funny, because I got my first (and current) job in programming through connections made well before getting into IT.
My github profile is sitting there. Linkedin also sends me regular spams about how $user I never heard of posted some stuff I won’t be interested in. Sure, I could actually use my Github as repository for coding outside work hours, it has its uses. But Linkedin? The place where cocksuckers gather to suck even more cocks from suits?
Hi! I am new to the programming world, and everything involved. What do you think about gitlab? Many people are using it instead Github. Also I heard about Codeberg, but I dont know anything about it :)
Gitlab marketing docs heavily mislead you on its capabilities. Technically they are correct, but the way something works is reality isn’t often useful (epic boards are a great example).
This would be ok, but It’s really tightly integrated and doesn’t provide means for external tools to hook into it usefully.
For example I think GitLabs CI is the worst on the market but if you integrate another CI you don’t have a means to feedback information into Gitlab.
For example I think GitLabs CI is the worst on the market but if you integrate another CI you don’t have a means to feedback information into Gitlab.
You can do almost everything with the Gitlab API so I’m curious what issue you had.
I’m also not sure why “Gitlab CI is the worst on the market”? I really like in particular that I can have my own gitlab-runner on any machine.I want a build job to be triggered when a merge request is raised/changed to verify merge requests. Primarily I want it to comment/annotate changes so peer review focusses on logic and warnings are clear.
I can do this with Concourse, Circle, Jenkins and Github Actions on Azure Devops, Bitbucket Cloud, Bitbucket Server & Github. All Gitlab can tell you is pass/fail, which was good in 2003 but seriously lacking in 2023.
Similarly I want the ability to trigger a release and supply a desired version for the release (or someway to achieve that since our projects follow semantic versioning).
The release DSL is incomplete and could not work on server/cloud last time I used it. The page claims it can do alot but there is a hole in it and even the writer clearly knew.
I want the ability to specify multiple reusable pipelines, in a central place. This is not possible in cloud.
Lastly I would like to have multiple potential pipelines in a repository (e.g. smoke test and release). You can hack this in via variables. This will/won’t work depending specifically on the runner for your job. if self hosted or cloud you’ll notice different parsing behaviour depending on what host it runs on. This is shocking.
I have an email somewhere where I went through every GitLab CI DSL and documented which didn’t consistently work, which only worked consistently on cloud and which only worked on server. Also things like release that are broken on both.
The only way to make it work is to use multi stage docker builds and if your doing that build bot and a bash script would be better.
All of what you said seems completely doable to me.
Primarily I want it to comment/annotate changes so peer review focusses on logic and warnings are clear.
You can. See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/ci/variables/predefined_variables.html
CI_PIPELINE_SOURCE
How the pipeline was triggered. Can be push, web, schedule, api, external, chat, webide, merge_request_event, external_pull_request_event, parent_pipeline, trigger, or pipeline
You have full access to the API and can do whatever you want in the MR too.
I want the ability to specify multiple reusable pipelines, in a central place. This is not possible in cloud.
You can, with CI templates. Templates can be in a completely different repository
Lastly I would like to have multiple potential pipelines in a repository (e.g. smoke test and release).
I do have different pipelines for staging and production in my projects with no issue.
Try to do it and get back to me.
For extra fun try to do it in cloud and server, you’ll realise some stuffis server only, some cloud only and the docs don’t tell you which one is true
I’m only using the hosted version, it works. I do have a separate gitlab-runner in GCP at the moment though that is working fine.
If something doesn’t work for you I suggest creating a ticket?
Gitlab adheres to a “one tool for all the jobs” philosophy and tends to be a performance mess for the end user. Every time I had to use it, I wanted not to.
SourceHut is a counterexample to claims of monolith superiority gitlab makes. Whether it will continue to be that is an open question, but right now it’s quite a joy to use.
Every time I have to try to find things on gitlab I have a generally harder time doing so than on github. Maybe I’m just used to github’s layout, but gitlab’s just seems awkward to me. Also, I think non-tech-savy people will inevitably be confused by having to click “deployments” to get to releases; and on release pages, below where you actually download files, it always says “evidence collection”, which sounds really ominous (for end users)
I was thinking about switching to GitLab. But after reading your comment… not so much.
Just check it out, it has an open source base unlike GitHub. If you don’t like it, that’s fine, but like you do t even want to try it now?
We use gitlab at work.
If you’re going for hosted, I’d always use github (userbase, UI, free features set). If you’re self hosting, gitlab is a good alternative. Their heavy promotion of and focus on full chain into managed cloud can be irritating and annoying though.
Gitlab has a free tier too. If you’re curious, try it out.
Same has happened in recent versions of Gitlab. Lots of feature creep and UI changes that seem non-intuitive (at least for me)