5 ms·

Disagree. Refering to GitHub as category-defining would be antithetical to the Forgejo spirit. Forgejo stands on its own.

by baobun 2y ago

phantomathkg 2y ago
Disagree. Unfortunately Forge is not a well known category defining term. Using it as a tagline defying the purposes to popularize Forgego.
- szszrk 2y ago
  Yet when posts online described it as an alternative/clone of GitHub/gitlab/gitea it was alsa received with criticism and complains that "what if I don't know what gitea is". Naming and creating descriptions is not trivial, I wish more complaints would also simply come with proposals of better taglines, so we can bash those ideas quickly in comments and cut that long feedback loop.
- WhyNotHugo 2y ago
  Defining itself as simply an alternative to the mainstream is a not a great way to makes its own identity. Imagine if Fedora presented itself as simply “an open source alternative to windows”. Sure, that might be easier to understand for those less in the field, but really doesn’t help it’s own identity.
- rollcat 2y ago
  Disagree. SourceForge was established in 1999. The term "software forge" was in widespread use, until Github started gaining mainstream attention. But the term "hub" doesn't necessarily always refer to the same thing - e.g. certain adult entertainment website is also using it.
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    "Software forge" has a certain explanatory ring to it, but approximately nobody has any clue what SourceForge is, or even less, what it represented back in its heyday. The kids know github, many don't even know the difference between github and git, or slighly less concerning, assume git is a tool from github.
  - lee_ars 2y ago
    > SourceForge was established in 1999. The term "software forge" was in widespread use... Not trying to be contentious, but I've got a 5-digit slashdot ID and I've never heard that phrase explicitly used in my entire life as a term of art by software devs, including at or around 1999. Definitely not saying that nobody was using the term, but "widespread use" is a big claim that requires some substantiation. It absolutely does not align with my lived experience of the time.
    - dotancohen 2y ago
      Funny that you mention /., I just mentioned it in another comment. Sourceforge bought /. and advertise there heavily - I very much associate the two.
    - hinkley 2y ago
      Also five digit /. id, and I would like to remind grandparent and upvoters that 1999 was a long fucking time ago. There are senior programmers who weren’t born in 1999! Why the fuck would they know about Sourceforge? Was it on a special episode of the Backyardigans?
    - dmd 2y ago
      I’ve got a three digit id (/. user number 404!) and I agree.
  - IshKebab 2y ago
    You're objectively wrong in this case - look at all the comments in this thread. Clearly "forge" is not a well known category defining term.
    - rollcat 2y ago
      It very much used to be, before Github delivered where SourceForge couldn't (and still doesn't). But the history is still written in project names like GForge, FusionForge; and of course the contemporary SourceHut refers to itself as a "hacker's forge". I know whatever's written in Wikipedia doesn't necessarily have to be authoritative, but it's worth to check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forge_(software)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forge_(software)#History
arp242 2y ago
Forgejo is a GitHub clone. No one can claim with a straight face that it's somehow completely unrelated.
- rapnie 2y ago
  And then all software revision control systems / forges have more or less the same conceptual model for their platform, and just adding their specific sauce and some tailoring to specific needs. Some more innovative and deviating platforms from this more-of-the-same approach are Sourcehut (brutal minimalism) and Gitlab (enterprise dev lifecycle, process support). And then there's the general trend for these platforms to become one-stop-shop maximized lock-in walled gardens, aiming to support the entirety of software development practices (while they seem open and gratis).
  - rapnie 2y ago
    PS. This trend for one-stop-shop platforms will also see their owners start to monetize the absolute hell out of their existing (and often vast, take Github) 3rd-party vendor ecosystem via plugin marketplaces, app stores, and their platform API's and SDK's, which many of these vendors now think bring along on a free ride.
- konart 2y ago
  Why Github and not Bitbucket?
  - selectnull 2y ago
    Maybe because Github was there first. BB was created as the GH clone, for mercurial repos.
    - konart 2y ago
      Both launched in 2008.
      - 2y ago

Disagree. Refering to GitHub as category-defining would be antithetical to the Forgejo spirit. Forgejo stands on its own.

by baobun 2y ago

Disagree. Refering to GitHub as category-defining would be antithetical to the Forgejo spirit. Forgejo stands on its own.

phantomathkg 2y ago

Disagree. Unfortunately Forge is not a well known category defining term. Using it as a tagline defying the purposes to popularize Forgego.

szszrk 2y ago
Yet when posts online described it as an alternative/clone of GitHub/gitlab/gitea it was alsa received with criticism and complains that "what if I don't know what gitea is". Naming and creating descriptions is not trivial, I wish more complaints would also simply come with proposals of better taglines, so we can bash those ideas quickly in comments and cut that long feedback loop.
WhyNotHugo 2y ago
Defining itself as simply an alternative to the mainstream is a not a great way to makes its own identity. Imagine if Fedora presented itself as simply “an open source alternative to windows”. Sure, that might be easier to understand for those less in the field, but really doesn’t help it’s own identity.
rollcat 2y ago
Disagree. SourceForge was established in 1999. The term "software forge" was in widespread use, until Github started gaining mainstream attention. But the term "hub" doesn't necessarily always refer to the same thing - e.g. certain adult entertainment website is also using it.
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  "Software forge" has a certain explanatory ring to it, but approximately nobody has any clue what SourceForge is, or even less, what it represented back in its heyday. The kids know github, many don't even know the difference between github and git, or slighly less concerning, assume git is a tool from github.
- lee_ars 2y ago
  > SourceForge was established in 1999. The term "software forge" was in widespread use... Not trying to be contentious, but I've got a 5-digit slashdot ID and I've never heard that phrase explicitly used in my entire life as a term of art by software devs, including at or around 1999. Definitely not saying that nobody was using the term, but "widespread use" is a big claim that requires some substantiation. It absolutely does not align with my lived experience of the time.
  - dotancohen 2y ago
    Funny that you mention /., I just mentioned it in another comment. Sourceforge bought /. and advertise there heavily - I very much associate the two.
  - hinkley 2y ago
    Also five digit /. id, and I would like to remind grandparent and upvoters that 1999 was a long fucking time ago. There are senior programmers who weren’t born in 1999! Why the fuck would they know about Sourceforge? Was it on a special episode of the Backyardigans?
  - dmd 2y ago
    I’ve got a three digit id (/. user number 404!) and I agree.
- IshKebab 2y ago
  You're objectively wrong in this case - look at all the comments in this thread. Clearly "forge" is not a well known category defining term.
  - rollcat 2y ago
    It very much used to be, before Github delivered where SourceForge couldn't (and still doesn't). But the history is still written in project names like GForge, FusionForge; and of course the contemporary SourceHut refers to itself as a "hacker's forge". I know whatever's written in Wikipedia doesn't necessarily have to be authoritative, but it's worth to check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forge_(software)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forge_(software)#History

arp242 2y ago

Forgejo is a GitHub clone. No one can claim with a straight face that it's somehow completely unrelated.

rapnie 2y ago
And then all software revision control systems / forges have more or less the same conceptual model for their platform, and just adding their specific sauce and some tailoring to specific needs. Some more innovative and deviating platforms from this more-of-the-same approach are Sourcehut (brutal minimalism) and Gitlab (enterprise dev lifecycle, process support). And then there's the general trend for these platforms to become one-stop-shop maximized lock-in walled gardens, aiming to support the entirety of software development practices (while they seem open and gratis).
- rapnie 2y ago
  PS. This trend for one-stop-shop platforms will also see their owners start to monetize the absolute hell out of their existing (and often vast, take Github) 3rd-party vendor ecosystem via plugin marketplaces, app stores, and their platform API's and SDK's, which many of these vendors now think bring along on a free ride.
konart 2y ago
Why Github and not Bitbucket?
- selectnull 2y ago
  Maybe because Github was there first. BB was created as the GH clone, for mercurial repos.
  - konart 2y ago
    Both launched in 2008.
    - 2y ago