4 ms·

Because they know Forgejo is starting to get attention from major players and thus becoming competitive, and hosting your own CI infrastructure will make comple

Because they know Forgejo is starting to get attention from major players and thus becoming competitive, and hosting your own CI infrastructure will make completely moving away from GitHub all that easier - If you don't really care about the metadata all it pretty much takes is moving git repositories with their history. Or shortly summarized: lock in through pricing. Pretty sure this will explode straight in their faces though. And pretty damn hard.

sallveburrpi 10mo ago
How can you lock in through charging money? Seems it’s like the opposite and they are charging because people are already locked in and they can or am I misreading your comment?
- mindcrash 10mo ago
  Microsoft "suddenly" does not seem to want you to run your own CI, which is a key part of running your own SCM. And this decision miraculously happens the moment a lot of big orgs are looking at self-hosting a cost effective (because open source) near 1:1 alternative to GitHub (=Forgejo). So they make CI a bit cheaper but a future migration to Forgejo harder. In fact they could easily pull off some typical sleazy Microsoft bullshit and eventually make it a shit ton harder to migrate out of GitHub once you migrated back in.
- Vegenoid 10mo ago
  The idea is that they let you stay locked in for free. They dissuade people from making their CI pipeline forge-agnostic by charging you if you if you take steps to not be dependent on them. This means they can keep charging in other areas, and keep people in GitHub so that it stays dominant. Dominance is something that can be used to keep people in the Microsoft ecosystem, keep GitHub as the place where code goes so they have training data for LLMs, and dominance can simply be cashed in down the line. I don’t know if that’s actually why they’re doing this, but it sounds plausible.
- dragonwriter 10mo ago
  If you make running your own runners as expensive as running on Github's runners on top of the cost of actually hosting the runners, then if you are currently on Github and not able to migrate off immediately, the price conscious decision is to migrate runners into Github. But then, its even harder if you ever decide to migrate your whole operation out. Now, if you are already looking at migrating, its also potentially a kick in the butt to do it now. But if you aren’t, the path of least resistance—or at least, the path of least present recurring cost—is a path to a greater degree of lock-in.
newsoftheday 10mo ago
[flagged]
- esseph 10mo ago
  Inclusive is strike 1? What color are you? I'm sure I can find a company that supports ethnostates if you need that for your next project.
  - 36890752189743 10mo ago
    [flagged]
- ted_dunning 10mo ago
  Democratic organization is a strike? Where do you live that that seems like a bad idea?
- ajford 10mo ago
  Inclusivity and democratic governance of a project is a strike to you? Seems like perhaps your hat is showing...
selkin 10mo ago
I don't think Forgejo is competitive in the markets GitHub makes most of their money from, nor does it seem Forgejo developers want it to be.
- parliament32 10mo ago
  Where does GitHub even make most of their money? Their compliance posture makes them a non-starter for any regulated industries (which is atypical for a Microsoft property, generally MS is the market leader for compliance in all of their products).
  - sakisv 10mo ago
    Given that a lot of places that deal with money use them, I find your comment quite interesting and would like to learn more :)
    - parliament32 10mo ago
      The easiest way is to compare GitHub's compliance report list with, say, Atlassian Bitbucket. https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/organizations/keeping-your-organization-secure/managing-security-settings-for-your-organization/accessing-compliance-reports-for-your-organization#about-githubs-compliance-reports https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/organizat... https://www.atlassian.com/trust/compliance/resources https://www.atlassian.com/trust/compliance/resources
  - ghqqwwee 10mo ago
    Places might be officially regulated, but neither government agencies, healthcare, finance or defense industries are as strict as you think. People have to get stuff done, and most are usually quite incompetent in these protected industries. Microsoft’s sales reps know this.
- mindcrash 10mo ago
  Representatives from the Dutch government recently had a chat with representatives from Forgejo because they are quite interested in migrating their SCM infrastructure from Github to Forgejo. And trust me, they are running a lot of public and private repositories. And there are many more orgs and govs throughout Europe doing similar things because there's a (growing) zeitgeist here that the Trump administration nor any American SaaS company can be trusted. This started, by the way, after Microsoft suspended the ICJ from using Microsoft 365 on orders from the White House.
ozim 10mo ago
I would keep repos on GH but use Jenkins though.
PunchyHamster 10mo ago
Not sure why you think forgejo is competition and not Gitlab. > Or shortly summarized: lock in through pricing. how would increasing price make you locked in more ? > If you don't really care about the metadata all it pretty much takes is moving git repositories with their history. moving PR/CI/CD/Ticket flow is very significant effort, as in most companies that stuff is referenced everywhere. Having your commits refer ticket ID from system that no longer exists is royal PITA
- falsedan 10mo ago
  > Having your commits refer ticket ID from system that no longer exists is royal PITA just rewrite the short links in your front-end to point to the migrated issues/PRs. write a redirect rule for each migrated issue/PR, easy hard-coded links in commit messages are annoying, you can redirect in the front-end too but locally you'd have to smudge/clean them on local checkout/commit

sallveburrpi 10mo ago

How can you lock in through charging money? Seems it’s like the opposite and they are charging because people are already locked in and they can or am I misreading your comment?

mindcrash 10mo ago
Microsoft "suddenly" does not seem to want you to run your own CI, which is a key part of running your own SCM. And this decision miraculously happens the moment a lot of big orgs are looking at self-hosting a cost effective (because open source) near 1:1 alternative to GitHub (=Forgejo). So they make CI a bit cheaper but a future migration to Forgejo harder. In fact they could easily pull off some typical sleazy Microsoft bullshit and eventually make it a shit ton harder to migrate out of GitHub once you migrated back in.
Vegenoid 10mo ago
The idea is that they let you stay locked in for free. They dissuade people from making their CI pipeline forge-agnostic by charging you if you if you take steps to not be dependent on them. This means they can keep charging in other areas, and keep people in GitHub so that it stays dominant. Dominance is something that can be used to keep people in the Microsoft ecosystem, keep GitHub as the place where code goes so they have training data for LLMs, and dominance can simply be cashed in down the line. I don’t know if that’s actually why they’re doing this, but it sounds plausible.
dragonwriter 10mo ago
If you make running your own runners as expensive as running on Github's runners on top of the cost of actually hosting the runners, then if you are currently on Github and not able to migrate off immediately, the price conscious decision is to migrate runners into Github. But then, its even harder if you ever decide to migrate your whole operation out. Now, if you are already looking at migrating, its also potentially a kick in the butt to do it now. But if you aren’t, the path of least resistance—or at least, the path of least present recurring cost—is a path to a greater degree of lock-in.

newsoftheday 10mo ago

[flagged]

esseph 10mo ago
Inclusive is strike 1? What color are you? I'm sure I can find a company that supports ethnostates if you need that for your next project.
- 36890752189743 10mo ago
  [flagged]
ted_dunning 10mo ago
Democratic organization is a strike? Where do you live that that seems like a bad idea?
ajford 10mo ago
Inclusivity and democratic governance of a project is a strike to you? Seems like perhaps your hat is showing...

selkin 10mo ago

I don't think Forgejo is competitive in the markets GitHub makes most of their money from, nor does it seem Forgejo developers want it to be.

parliament32 10mo ago
Where does GitHub even make most of their money? Their compliance posture makes them a non-starter for any regulated industries (which is atypical for a Microsoft property, generally MS is the market leader for compliance in all of their products).
- sakisv 10mo ago
  Given that a lot of places that deal with money use them, I find your comment quite interesting and would like to learn more :)
  - parliament32 10mo ago
    The easiest way is to compare GitHub's compliance report list with, say, Atlassian Bitbucket. https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/organizations/keeping-your-organization-secure/managing-security-settings-for-your-organization/accessing-compliance-reports-for-your-organization#about-githubs-compliance-reports https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/organizat... https://www.atlassian.com/trust/compliance/resources https://www.atlassian.com/trust/compliance/resources
- ghqqwwee 10mo ago
  Places might be officially regulated, but neither government agencies, healthcare, finance or defense industries are as strict as you think. People have to get stuff done, and most are usually quite incompetent in these protected industries. Microsoft’s sales reps know this.
mindcrash 10mo ago
Representatives from the Dutch government recently had a chat with representatives from Forgejo because they are quite interested in migrating their SCM infrastructure from Github to Forgejo. And trust me, they are running a lot of public and private repositories. And there are many more orgs and govs throughout Europe doing similar things because there's a (growing) zeitgeist here that the Trump administration nor any American SaaS company can be trusted. This started, by the way, after Microsoft suspended the ICJ from using Microsoft 365 on orders from the White House.

ozim 10mo ago

I would keep repos on GH but use Jenkins though.

PunchyHamster 10mo ago

Not sure why you think forgejo is competition and not Gitlab. > Or shortly summarized: lock in through pricing. how would increasing price make you locked in more ? > If you don't really care about the metadata all it pretty much takes is moving git repositories with their history. moving PR/CI/CD/Ticket flow is very significant effort, as in most companies that stuff is referenced everywhere. Having your commits refer ticket ID from system that no longer exists is royal PITA

falsedan 10mo ago
> Having your commits refer ticket ID from system that no longer exists is royal PITA just rewrite the short links in your front-end to point to the migrated issues/PRs. write a redirect rule for each migrated issue/PR, easy hard-coded links in commit messages are annoying, you can redirect in the front-end too but locally you'd have to smudge/clean them on local checkout/commit