3 ms·

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

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.
        still_grokking 4y ago
        > I'm sorry but that's a terrible comparison. Do you have any arguments that would bake this claim? Where's the difference? > If internet providers would not be in the habit of snooping and filtering on their customer's traffic […] What are you talking about? This does not happen as it would be illegal. At least in civilized countries. (Given a court order for lawful interception there may be exceptions to that, of course). > net neutrality This term means something else. > we need HTTPS For other reasons. One of them being rogue states that snoop on people's traffic. [Not looking in the direction of north America now]. > VPNs That's similar to HTTPS. Also it circumvents state level censoring, which is needed by now in quite some countries. > Tor That's even more in the direction of hiding form state surveillance. Your ISP usually knows that you're using Tor… > Dark Web That's a very unclear term, btw. And it has nothing to do with anything an ISP does. > but the fact is that internet providers are in fact snooping for themselves Like I said: Not in civilized countries, as this would be a breach of the constitutional right to privacy of correspondence. > law enforcement That's a tangent. Everybody besides a culprit needs to cooperate with law enforcement. > denying customers the use of certain ports or protocols You could do this in theory. But you wouldn't be selling internet access anymore in this case. This would be like AOL or Compuserve back then.
  - nmz 4y ago
    I wouldn't blame them considering most crypto related things are scams. To protect the platform, its best that it just not be there. While github has the money to defend youtube-dl, the truth is the RIAA killed it. If you're doing scammy things, stick to fossil and host it on your own.
- 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.

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.
        still_grokking 4y ago
        > I'm sorry but that's a terrible comparison. Do you have any arguments that would bake this claim? Where's the difference? > If internet providers would not be in the habit of snooping and filtering on their customer's traffic […] What are you talking about? This does not happen as it would be illegal. At least in civilized countries. (Given a court order for lawful interception there may be exceptions to that, of course). > net neutrality This term means something else. > we need HTTPS For other reasons. One of them being rogue states that snoop on people's traffic. [Not looking in the direction of north America now]. > VPNs That's similar to HTTPS. Also it circumvents state level censoring, which is needed by now in quite some countries. > Tor That's even more in the direction of hiding form state surveillance. Your ISP usually knows that you're using Tor… > Dark Web That's a very unclear term, btw. And it has nothing to do with anything an ISP does. > but the fact is that internet providers are in fact snooping for themselves Like I said: Not in civilized countries, as this would be a breach of the constitutional right to privacy of correspondence. > law enforcement That's a tangent. Everybody besides a culprit needs to cooperate with law enforcement. > denying customers the use of certain ports or protocols You could do this in theory. But you wouldn't be selling internet access anymore in this case. This would be like AOL or Compuserve back then.
- nmz 4y ago
  I wouldn't blame them considering most crypto related things are scams. To protect the platform, its best that it just not be there. While github has the money to defend youtube-dl, the truth is the RIAA killed it. If you're doing scammy things, stick to fossil and host it on your own.
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.