7 ms·

This is a cool project I've been watching for a while. But off topic from this, what is with all the sourcehut links on HN lately? Where did this suddenly come

This is a cool project I've been watching for a while. But off topic from this, what is with all the sourcehut links on HN lately? Where did this suddenly come out of? Looks like a lot of cool projects are starting to host their code here. Wondering how it got the traction.

catacombs 6y ago
SourceHut is not GitHub or GitLab. That's already a plus.
- tolqen 6y ago
  At what point will it be “is not GitHub, GitLab, or SourceHut”
  - jolmg 6y ago
    When SourceHut is big enough and there's a new underdog to support. Hurray for competitive markets!
  - kick 6y ago
    Drew is ethical, unlike the other two, and it seems very, very unlikely that will change. Have you seen his rants? He cares more about software freedom than most GNU contributors. He also has been contributing to free software for years as his main occupation, which is something that can't be said of the founders of the other two. If Drew somehow has a complete change of personality and ethics, that's when it'll be "It's not GitHub, GitLab, or SourceHut." But as it is, he's basically the only trustworthy business-owner on this site. He even reps a "competitor" that actually supports software freedom as well: Codeberg.
  - kitotik 6y ago
    mmm, the founder of Sourcehut is about as far from typical startup founder as you can get. He’d have to blow up his whole schtick if Sourcehut started down a ethically questionable path.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  GitHub is Microsoft, what's wrong with GitLab?
  - remexre 6y ago
    GitLab loads enormous amounts of JS, and requires more server resources than just about anything else I've tried to run that wasn't a game server.
_vbdg 6y ago
Aside from the "proprietary bad" arguments (which is enough to get traction on HN), there are a bunch of practical reasons: 1. It's faster. Mr. Devault, Sourcehut's author, runs a benchmark site that demonstrates this: https://forgeperf.org/ https://forgeperf.org/ 2. The e-mail based workflow is (in my opinion) superior; I don't have to use some clunky web interface. 3. I can run it myself, on-premise, for free.
- xori 6y ago
  Unfortunately the actually git "push"ing of code is slower. I'm a paying sr.ht member and that's the one thing I wish was faster.
  - ddevault 6y ago
    As of when? It was slow for a while, but we did a bunch of performance improvements and it's much better now.
- umvi 6y ago
  > 2. The e-mail based workflow is (in my opinion) superior; I don't have to use some clunky web interface. Yeah but my email client can't show me nice diffs and let me comment on line numbers like GitLab/Hub can... Plus I I don't really understand SH's decision not to support PRs, which seem fundamental to most workflows. I think PRs are far superior than spamming up my inbox and using esoteric git email commands To be fair, I've never actually tried an email-based workflow, but in my mind it involves a lot of emails and reply-alls and just general clutter and an absence of syntax highlighting, pinpoint line commenting, side-by-side diff and all the other nice things the GitLab/Hub provide with PRs.
  - ddevault 6y ago
    >Yeah but my email client can't show me nice diffs https://l.sr.ht/QlVR.png https://l.sr.ht/QlVR.png >let me comment on line numbers like GitLab/Hub can https://l.sr.ht/cz3L.png https://l.sr.ht/cz3L.png These are also being added to the web UI: https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/sr.ht-dev/patches/10253 https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/sr.ht-dev/patches/10253 But at the end of the day, if this workflow is not for you, there are a half-dozen other platforms you could be using.
rrix2 6y ago
They're the last bastion of hosted hg support, if that's of interest.
kick 6y ago
The site recently got discoverability of projects (less than a week ago); it's had a bunch of projects laying about for a few months now, but you'd have to use site:*.sr.ht on a search engine to find anything. It's more navigatable and has far fewer ethical problems than both Gitlab and GitHub, which makes it more enjoyable to search through. The site itself has actually had many links over the course of the past two years: - 46 from sr.ht https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=sr.ht https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=sr.ht - 22 from sourcehut.org https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=sourcehut.org https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=sourcehut.org
- franga2000 6y ago
  > ethical problems with GitLab Ooh? What did I miss?
  - kick 6y ago
    Mandatory telemetry until people started dropping subscriptions was the most well-known one in recent memory, but there have been more. The open core model is also ethically-poor.
    - vageli 6y ago
      > The open core model is also ethically-poor. Can you speak more to this?
      - kick 6y ago
        It's proprietary software with extra steps to trick people into giving a company the respect that comes with free software. To quote Andrew Miloradovsky: The reason why many companies insist on using "permissive" licenses is because they're having an "open core" business model, and want to be able to include the work of external contributors into their proprietary versions, without asking the contributors to sign any kind of agreement. I know multiple people working on multiple projects who would have been entirely willing and able to pay for the enterprise feature-set, were it not proprietary. It's not even a good business model! Solely aimed at large companies, GitLab has no regard for individual users or foundations & groups producing free software. Some people make the argument that because they offer the proprietary patches to free software projects at cost of nothing more than freedom, they do have regard for them, but that's a ridiculous argument: BitBucket was gratis for free software too.

catacombs 6y ago

SourceHut is not GitHub or GitLab. That's already a plus.

tolqen 6y ago
At what point will it be “is not GitHub, GitLab, or SourceHut”
- jolmg 6y ago
  When SourceHut is big enough and there's a new underdog to support. Hurray for competitive markets!
- kick 6y ago
  Drew is ethical, unlike the other two, and it seems very, very unlikely that will change. Have you seen his rants? He cares more about software freedom than most GNU contributors. He also has been contributing to free software for years as his main occupation, which is something that can't be said of the founders of the other two. If Drew somehow has a complete change of personality and ethics, that's when it'll be "It's not GitHub, GitLab, or SourceHut." But as it is, he's basically the only trustworthy business-owner on this site. He even reps a "competitor" that actually supports software freedom as well: Codeberg.
- kitotik 6y ago
  mmm, the founder of Sourcehut is about as far from typical startup founder as you can get. He’d have to blow up his whole schtick if Sourcehut started down a ethically questionable path.
whatshisface 6y ago
GitHub is Microsoft, what's wrong with GitLab?
- remexre 6y ago
  GitLab loads enormous amounts of JS, and requires more server resources than just about anything else I've tried to run that wasn't a game server.

_vbdg 6y ago

Aside from the "proprietary bad" arguments (which is enough to get traction on HN), there are a bunch of practical reasons: 1. It's faster. Mr. Devault, Sourcehut's author, runs a benchmark site that demonstrates this: https://forgeperf.org/ https://forgeperf.org/ 2. The e-mail based workflow is (in my opinion) superior; I don't have to use some clunky web interface. 3. I can run it myself, on-premise, for free.

xori 6y ago
Unfortunately the actually git "push"ing of code is slower. I'm a paying sr.ht member and that's the one thing I wish was faster.
- ddevault 6y ago
  As of when? It was slow for a while, but we did a bunch of performance improvements and it's much better now.
umvi 6y ago
> 2. The e-mail based workflow is (in my opinion) superior; I don't have to use some clunky web interface. Yeah but my email client can't show me nice diffs and let me comment on line numbers like GitLab/Hub can... Plus I I don't really understand SH's decision not to support PRs, which seem fundamental to most workflows. I think PRs are far superior than spamming up my inbox and using esoteric git email commands To be fair, I've never actually tried an email-based workflow, but in my mind it involves a lot of emails and reply-alls and just general clutter and an absence of syntax highlighting, pinpoint line commenting, side-by-side diff and all the other nice things the GitLab/Hub provide with PRs.
- ddevault 6y ago
  >Yeah but my email client can't show me nice diffs https://l.sr.ht/QlVR.png https://l.sr.ht/QlVR.png >let me comment on line numbers like GitLab/Hub can https://l.sr.ht/cz3L.png https://l.sr.ht/cz3L.png These are also being added to the web UI: https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/sr.ht-dev/patches/10253 https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/sr.ht-dev/patches/10253 But at the end of the day, if this workflow is not for you, there are a half-dozen other platforms you could be using.

rrix2 6y ago

They're the last bastion of hosted hg support, if that's of interest.

kick 6y ago

The site recently got discoverability of projects (less than a week ago); it's had a bunch of projects laying about for a few months now, but you'd have to use site:*.sr.ht on a search engine to find anything. It's more navigatable and has far fewer ethical problems than both Gitlab and GitHub, which makes it more enjoyable to search through. The site itself has actually had many links over the course of the past two years: - 46 from sr.ht https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=sr.ht https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=sr.ht - 22 from sourcehut.org https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=sourcehut.org https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=sourcehut.org

franga2000 6y ago
> ethical problems with GitLab Ooh? What did I miss?
- kick 6y ago
  Mandatory telemetry until people started dropping subscriptions was the most well-known one in recent memory, but there have been more. The open core model is also ethically-poor.
  - vageli 6y ago
    > The open core model is also ethically-poor. Can you speak more to this?
    - kick 6y ago
      It's proprietary software with extra steps to trick people into giving a company the respect that comes with free software. To quote Andrew Miloradovsky: The reason why many companies insist on using "permissive" licenses is because they're having an "open core" business model, and want to be able to include the work of external contributors into their proprietary versions, without asking the contributors to sign any kind of agreement. I know multiple people working on multiple projects who would have been entirely willing and able to pay for the enterprise feature-set, were it not proprietary. It's not even a good business model! Solely aimed at large companies, GitLab has no regard for individual users or foundations & groups producing free software. Some people make the argument that because they offer the proprietary patches to free software projects at cost of nothing more than freedom, they do have regard for them, but that's a ridiculous argument: BitBucket was gratis for free software too.