4 ms·

FWIW, SourceHut offers Mercurial hosting.

by fleg 4y ago

openplatypus 4y ago
From the site: Notice: sr.ht is currently in alpha, and the quality of the service may reflect that. :( I miss Kiln from FogBugz (yes, it was years ago)
- zephyr9 4y ago
  SourceHut is more reliable than GitHub. I mean this in the truest sense of the word, I can rely on SourceHut not to act against my interests, both ideologically and just basic usefulness.
  - seanw444 4y ago
    Agreed. Moved all my stuff from GitHub to Sourcehut. Haven't looked back. Well, okay, I look at the trending repos and star some that are interesting, but I don't host my personal projects on there.
  - dist1ll 4y ago
    I thought so too at first, until the owner changed their TOS to forbid all crypto and blockchain related projects, essentially kicking me off their platform. So no, it's not reliable. The platform is at the behest of a small group of ideologists, who might change their stance on any topic on a whim. GitHub on the contrary continues to host code that has been OFAC sanctioned. I'd rather stay with them.
    - still_grokking 4y ago
      Moment, what? SourceHut bans customers purely on ideological grounds? If true, this would change my opinion about this service diametrically. That would result in: Never ever make business with them.
      - nix23 4y ago
        https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-31-tos-update-cryptocurrency/ https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-31-tos-update-cryptocurre... Yes, it's a really bad move, you pay for the service but the nature of your code is not welcomed. Like you i was a bit shocked too...well and a bit sad since i was thinking that a hosting i pay for should give me more freedom and not less, and that code(knowledge?) should be free.
        mariusor 4y ago
        I think you're mixing up what "freedom" is in regards to open source. Sourcehut's code gives a user the freedom to use it for whatever they want - including hosting their own crypto-currency projects. sr.ht the "service" on the other hand is not required to do a thing and denying users the ability to host those projects doesn't contradict any licence the code has been released under.
        still_grokking 4y ago
        The point isn't any license. The point is that's it's not the business of a hoster to decide what people may host. A hoster gets money for hosting things. Ideally the hoster does not even know what he's hosting. (Until there is a problem with that that someone else points out to the hoster; which the hoster should than just ignore in case this someone isn't an authority with a valid court order in hands). As a parallel: Just imagine your ISP would start to filter the web sites you may visit based on some arbitrary ideological believes. That's more or less the same to what's happening on SourceHut, imho.
        mariusor 4y ago
        I'm sorry but that's a terrible comparison. If internet providers would not be in the habit of snooping and filtering on their customer's traffic would we have debates about net neutrality, would we need HTTPS?, would VPNs be a thing?, would we need Tor?, would there be a Dark Web? Granted I'm over dramatizing the situation, but the fact is that internet providers are in fact snooping for themselves, or for law enforcement, denying customers the use of certain ports or protocols, injecting content into non-secure content, etc. I can understand one being upset that sourcehut's policy changed "after" paying for an account, but you can just stop paying for the service and move to a different forge. Being butthurt that people have different principles than you is not cool.
    - kuschku 4y ago
      SourceHut offers CI. People end up just using the CI for litecoin/bitcoin/eth/etc mining or the storage for chia mining.
      - dist1ll 4y ago
        Wrong. See Drew DeVault's (founder of SourceHut) comment on exactly this topic: > Q: How much of this is due to not wanting build/pipeline servers getting abused for mining purposes? > A: None: the mining incidents stopped entirely when we started charging for CI and it stopped being profitable to do it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33404713 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33404713 As you can see, CI had nothing to do with their decision. The ToS changes specifically refer to source code hosting.

FWIW, SourceHut offers Mercurial hosting.

by fleg 4y ago

FWIW, SourceHut offers Mercurial hosting.

From the site: Notice: sr.ht is currently in alpha, and the quality of the service may reflect that. :( I miss Kiln from FogBugz (yes, it was years ago)

zephyr9 4y ago
SourceHut is more reliable than GitHub. I mean this in the truest sense of the word, I can rely on SourceHut not to act against my interests, both ideologically and just basic usefulness.
- seanw444 4y ago
  Agreed. Moved all my stuff from GitHub to Sourcehut. Haven't looked back. Well, okay, I look at the trending repos and star some that are interesting, but I don't host my personal projects on there.
- dist1ll 4y ago
  I thought so too at first, until the owner changed their TOS to forbid all crypto and blockchain related projects, essentially kicking me off their platform. So no, it's not reliable. The platform is at the behest of a small group of ideologists, who might change their stance on any topic on a whim. GitHub on the contrary continues to host code that has been OFAC sanctioned. I'd rather stay with them.
  - still_grokking 4y ago
    Moment, what? SourceHut bans customers purely on ideological grounds? If true, this would change my opinion about this service diametrically. That would result in: Never ever make business with them.
    - nix23 4y ago
      https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-31-tos-update-cryptocurrency/ https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-31-tos-update-cryptocurre... Yes, it's a really bad move, you pay for the service but the nature of your code is not welcomed. Like you i was a bit shocked too...well and a bit sad since i was thinking that a hosting i pay for should give me more freedom and not less, and that code(knowledge?) should be free.
      - mariusor 4y ago
        I think you're mixing up what "freedom" is in regards to open source. Sourcehut's code gives a user the freedom to use it for whatever they want - including hosting their own crypto-currency projects. sr.ht the "service" on the other hand is not required to do a thing and denying users the ability to host those projects doesn't contradict any licence the code has been released under.
        still_grokking 4y ago
        The point isn't any license. The point is that's it's not the business of a hoster to decide what people may host. A hoster gets money for hosting things. Ideally the hoster does not even know what he's hosting. (Until there is a problem with that that someone else points out to the hoster; which the hoster should than just ignore in case this someone isn't an authority with a valid court order in hands). As a parallel: Just imagine your ISP would start to filter the web sites you may visit based on some arbitrary ideological believes. That's more or less the same to what's happening on SourceHut, imho.
        mariusor 4y ago
        I'm sorry but that's a terrible comparison. If internet providers would not be in the habit of snooping and filtering on their customer's traffic would we have debates about net neutrality, would we need HTTPS?, would VPNs be a thing?, would we need Tor?, would there be a Dark Web? Granted I'm over dramatizing the situation, but the fact is that internet providers are in fact snooping for themselves, or for law enforcement, denying customers the use of certain ports or protocols, injecting content into non-secure content, etc. I can understand one being upset that sourcehut's policy changed "after" paying for an account, but you can just stop paying for the service and move to a different forge. Being butthurt that people have different principles than you is not cool.
  - kuschku 4y ago
    SourceHut offers CI. People end up just using the CI for litecoin/bitcoin/eth/etc mining or the storage for chia mining.
    - dist1ll 4y ago
      Wrong. See Drew DeVault's (founder of SourceHut) comment on exactly this topic: > Q: How much of this is due to not wanting build/pipeline servers getting abused for mining purposes? > A: None: the mining incidents stopped entirely when we started charging for CI and it stopped being profitable to do it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33404713 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33404713 As you can see, CI had nothing to do with their decision. The ToS changes specifically refer to source code hosting.