9 ms·

I don't dislike Codeberg inherently, but it's not a "true" GitHub replacement. It can handle a good chunk of GitHub repositories (namely those for well establis

I don't dislike Codeberg inherently, but it's not a "true" GitHub replacement. It can handle a good chunk of GitHub repositories (namely those for well established FOSS projects looking to have everything a proper capital P project has), but if you're just looking for a generic place to put your code projects that aren't necessarily intended for public release and support (ie. random automation scripts, scraps of concepts that never really got off the ground, things not super cleaned up), they're not really for that - private repositories are discouraged according to their FAQ and are very limited (up to 100mb). They also don't want to host your homepage, so if GitHub Pages is why you used GitHub, they are not a replacement. Unfortunately I don't think there's really an answer to that conundrum that doesn't involve just spinning up your own git server and accepting all the operational overhead that comes with it. At least Forgejo (software behind Codeberg) is FOSS, so you can do that and it should cover most of what you need (and while you're in the realm of having a server, a Pages-esque replacement is trivial since you're configuring a webserver anyway.) Maybe Gitlab.com, although I am admittedly unfamiliar with how Gitlab's "main" instance has changed over the years wrt features. Here's their FAQ on the matter, it's worth a read: https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/ https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/faq/

real_joschi 6mo ago
> They also don't want to host your homepage, so if GitHub Pages is why you used GitHub, they are not a replacement. https://docs.codeberg.org/codeberg-pages/ https://docs.codeberg.org/codeberg-pages/
- noirscape 6mo ago
  From their FAQ: > If you do not contribute to free/libre software (or if it is limited to your personal homepage), and we feel like you only abuse Codeberg for storing your commercial projects or media backups, we might get unhappy about that. Emphasis mine. This isn't about if it's technically possible (it certainly is), it's whether or not it's allowed by their platform policies. Their page publishing feature seems more like it's meant for projects and organizations rather than individual people. The way it's described here indicates that using them to host your own blog/portfolio/what have you is considered to be abusing their services.
  - gzread 6mo ago
    and we feel like you only abuse Codeberg for storing your commercial projects or media backups Sounds like they're cool with a little personal website.
  - johnisgood 6mo ago
    Reading what you quoted, no it is not, as long as you contribute to free software or you have projects that are open source. Not just your personal homepage. If you only have a personal homepage and nothing else that is open source, then they have a problem. My 2 cents.
    - noirscape 6mo ago
      Which makes it not really a suitable replacement for GitHub, which is my entire point. Keep in mind, I'm not saying Codeberg is bad, but it's terms of use are pretty clear in the sense that they only really want FOSS and anyone who has something other than FOSS better look elsewhere. GitHub allowed you to basically put up anything that's "yours" and the license wasn't really their concern - that isn't the case with Codeberg. It's not about price or anything either; it'd be fine if the offer was "either give us 5$ for the privilege of private repositories or only publish and contribute public FOSS code" - I'm fine paying cash for that if need be. One of the big draws of GitHub (and what got me to properly learn git) back in the day with GitHub Pages in particular was "I can write an HTML page, do a git push and anyone can see it". Then you throw on top an SSG (GitHub had out of the box support for Jekyll, but back then you could rig Travis CI up for other page generators if you knew what you were doing), and with a bit of technical knowledge, anyone could host a blog without the full on server stack. Codeberg cannot provide that sort of experience with their current terms of service. Even sourcehut has, from what I can tell, a more lenient approach to what they provide (and the only reason why I wouldn't recommend sourcehut as a GitHub replacement is because git-by-email isn't really workable for most people anymore). They encourage FOSS licensing, but from what I can tell don't force it in their platform policies. (The only thing they openly ban is cryptocurrency related projects, which seems fair because cryptocurrency is pretty much always associated with platform abuse.)
NewJazz 6mo ago
Unfortunately I don't think there's really an answer to that conundrum that doesn't involve just spinning up your own git server and accepting all the operational overhead that comes with it. Hmm all that operational overhead... Of an ssh server? If you literally just want a place to push some code, then that really isn't that hard.
- mejutoco 6mo ago
  In case anybody is interested, having a bare git repo on a server is as easy as: # locally ssh git@example.com # server mkdir repo.git cd repo.git git --bare init # locally git remote add origin ssh://git@example.com/home/git/repo.git git push origin master P.S. I know it does not have the same features as github
  - SpaceNoodled 6mo ago
    It has all the same working features as github
  - stephenr 6mo ago
    If it's your ssh server and it's single user you don't need to use the "git@" part at all. Just store the repo and access it with your account. The whole git@ thing is because most "forge" software is built around a single dedicated user doing everything, rather than taking advantage of the OS users, permissions and acl system. For a single user it's pointless. For anyone who knows how to setup filesystem permissions it's not necessary.
    - kbolino 6mo ago
      There isn't much advantage that can be taken from O/S users and perms anyway, at least as far as git is concerned. When using a shared-filesystem repository over SSH (or NFS etc.), the actually usable access levels are: full, including the abilities to rewrite history, forge commits from other users, and corrupt/erase the repo; read-only; and none.
tbayramov 6mo ago
(Shameless plug) Hey, I’m building Monohub - as a GitHub alternative, and having private repositories is perhaps a key feature - it started as a place for me to host my own random stuff. Monohub [dot] dev is the URL. It’s quite early in development, so it’s quite rough around the edges. It has PR support though. Hosted in EU, incorporated in EU. Would be happy if you tried it out — maybe it’s something for you. Edit: you can have a look at a public repository I have to see what it looks like now: https://monohub.dev/@tbayramov/efcore-audit-timestamps https://monohub.dev/@tbayramov/efcore-audit-timestamps
- stephenr 6mo ago
  Are you using an existing forge package (like eg Forgejo which codeberg is built on) or something custom?
  - tbayramov 6mo ago
    Custom-built on top of libgit2.
    - NewJazz 6mo ago
      Not trying to be dismissive/snarky... But why?
      - tbayramov 6mo ago
        I started developing it as a slim wrapper around Git to support my own needs. At the same time, it is essential to have rich features like pull requests/code review, so I started focusing on designing a tool that strikes an appropriate balance between being minimalistic and functional. One thing that I focus on is allowing users to disable any feature they don't need.
- WhyNotHugo 6mo ago
  Doesn’t .dev belong to Google? An old choice or provider for a EU-focused hosting.
AlienRobot 6mo ago
To me that sounds like Github does too many things, not that Codeberg does too few.
- pyth0 6mo ago
  To me, and devs at large (given their market share), that sounds like convenience.
  - account42 6mo ago
    Either take some responsibility and properly evaluate what that convenience means for you long term or don't complain when they leverage that vendor lock in at your disadvantage.
- BeetleB 6mo ago
  Indeed. A code repository alternative should definitely not require an equivalent to Github Pages.
sneak 6mo ago
I love Gitea and self-hosting it has been effortless, even through upgrades.
- shlewis 6mo ago
  Forgejo, even. Both awesome, truly capable Github alternatives.
shmerl 6mo ago
GitLab is probably a better option for that.
- NewJazz 6mo ago
  Yeah, but ooh boy is a private gitlab server complicated. Omnibus installation helps manage that, but if you outgrow it you're in for a complicated time. Also gitlab has cves like every other week... You're going to be on that upgrade train, unless you keep access locked down (no internet access!!) and accept the admittedly lower risk of a vulnerable gitlab server on your LAN/VPN network. Even if gitlab is updated fully, you're fighting bot crawlers 24/7.
reissbaker 6mo ago
FWIW, Pierre's "Code Storage" project [1] seems like it simplifies a lot of the operational overhead of running git servers, if what you want is "an API for git push". Not affiliated with the company (and I haven't tried it myself, so I can't vouch for how well it works), I just think it's a neat idea. 1: https://code.storage/ https://code.storage/
- danpalmer 6mo ago
  I think "Code Storage" (definitely needs a unique name), is less an API for git push (surely git push is that API?), and more an API for "git init"? It seems to be Git as infrastructure, rather than Git as a product. i.e. if you're using it for a single repo it's probably not a good fit, it's for products that themselves provide git repos.
portly 6mo ago
What you said about the pages is just plainly false information. I host my website on CodeBerg pages. https://docs.codeberg.org/codeberg-pages/ https://docs.codeberg.org/codeberg-pages/
Rapzid 6mo ago
> Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people Step 1.) Stay on GitHub I think the internet has "GitHub Derangement Syndrome" right now. It's an outlet for people's frustration. The current trend reminds me a lot of the couple years we had where Game Developers were that outlet. They needed to "Wake up" and not "Go woke, go broke". An incredible amount of online discourse around gaming was hijacked by toxic negativity. I'm sure every individual has their really good logical reasons, but zooming out I think there is definitely a similar social pathology at play.
- bsder 6mo ago
  > I think the internet has "GitHub Derangement Syndrome" right now. It's an outlet for people's frustration. I would argue that the open source people aren't the only ones paying attention right now. If you are hosting proprietary code on Github, it has become clear that Microsoft is going to feed that into their AI training set. If you don't want that, you don't have a choice but to leave Github.
  - beanjuiceII 6mo ago
    you just disable the setting
    - schubidubiduba 6mo ago
      ...and trust naively that that does anything
    - tcmart14 6mo ago
      By the same company who admits that disabling telemetry does not in fact disable telemetry and refuse to fix it.
    - RadiozRadioz 6mo ago
      I take it you've never disabled Windows telemetry settings and had them magically restored after an update? This company either does what it wants to abuse people, or is too incompetent to make their software work as instructed. Both possibilities are bad. I expect the same translates to GitHub.
singpolyma3 6mo ago
"spinning up your own git server" isn't really a thing. Any server with ssh and git installed is a git server.
peytongreen_dev 6mo ago
[dead]
gzread 6mo ago
Private repositories can be hosted anywhere you have SSH access. Write the URL as username@host:/path
RadiozRadioz 6mo ago
Why would you want your remote source control repository to host your homepage?
sieabahlpark 6mo ago
[dead]

real_joschi 6mo ago

> They also don't want to host your homepage, so if GitHub Pages is why you used GitHub, they are not a replacement. https://docs.codeberg.org/codeberg-pages/ https://docs.codeberg.org/codeberg-pages/

noirscape 6mo ago
From their FAQ: > If you do not contribute to free/libre software (or if it is limited to your personal homepage), and we feel like you only abuse Codeberg for storing your commercial projects or media backups, we might get unhappy about that. Emphasis mine. This isn't about if it's technically possible (it certainly is), it's whether or not it's allowed by their platform policies. Their page publishing feature seems more like it's meant for projects and organizations rather than individual people. The way it's described here indicates that using them to host your own blog/portfolio/what have you is considered to be abusing their services.
- gzread 6mo ago
  and we feel like you only abuse Codeberg for storing your commercial projects or media backups Sounds like they're cool with a little personal website.
- johnisgood 6mo ago
  Reading what you quoted, no it is not, as long as you contribute to free software or you have projects that are open source. Not just your personal homepage. If you only have a personal homepage and nothing else that is open source, then they have a problem. My 2 cents.
  - noirscape 6mo ago
    Which makes it not really a suitable replacement for GitHub, which is my entire point. Keep in mind, I'm not saying Codeberg is bad, but it's terms of use are pretty clear in the sense that they only really want FOSS and anyone who has something other than FOSS better look elsewhere. GitHub allowed you to basically put up anything that's "yours" and the license wasn't really their concern - that isn't the case with Codeberg. It's not about price or anything either; it'd be fine if the offer was "either give us 5$ for the privilege of private repositories or only publish and contribute public FOSS code" - I'm fine paying cash for that if need be. One of the big draws of GitHub (and what got me to properly learn git) back in the day with GitHub Pages in particular was "I can write an HTML page, do a git push and anyone can see it". Then you throw on top an SSG (GitHub had out of the box support for Jekyll, but back then you could rig Travis CI up for other page generators if you knew what you were doing), and with a bit of technical knowledge, anyone could host a blog without the full on server stack. Codeberg cannot provide that sort of experience with their current terms of service. Even sourcehut has, from what I can tell, a more lenient approach to what they provide (and the only reason why I wouldn't recommend sourcehut as a GitHub replacement is because git-by-email isn't really workable for most people anymore). They encourage FOSS licensing, but from what I can tell don't force it in their platform policies. (The only thing they openly ban is cryptocurrency related projects, which seems fair because cryptocurrency is pretty much always associated with platform abuse.)

NewJazz 6mo ago

Unfortunately I don't think there's really an answer to that conundrum that doesn't involve just spinning up your own git server and accepting all the operational overhead that comes with it. Hmm all that operational overhead... Of an ssh server? If you literally just want a place to push some code, then that really isn't that hard.

mejutoco 6mo ago
In case anybody is interested, having a bare git repo on a server is as easy as: # locally ssh git@example.com # server mkdir repo.git cd repo.git git --bare init # locally git remote add origin ssh://git@example.com/home/git/repo.git git push origin master P.S. I know it does not have the same features as github
- SpaceNoodled 6mo ago
  It has all the same working features as github
- stephenr 6mo ago
  If it's your ssh server and it's single user you don't need to use the "git@" part at all. Just store the repo and access it with your account. The whole git@ thing is because most "forge" software is built around a single dedicated user doing everything, rather than taking advantage of the OS users, permissions and acl system. For a single user it's pointless. For anyone who knows how to setup filesystem permissions it's not necessary.
  - kbolino 6mo ago
    There isn't much advantage that can be taken from O/S users and perms anyway, at least as far as git is concerned. When using a shared-filesystem repository over SSH (or NFS etc.), the actually usable access levels are: full, including the abilities to rewrite history, forge commits from other users, and corrupt/erase the repo; read-only; and none.

tbayramov 6mo ago

(Shameless plug) Hey, I’m building Monohub - as a GitHub alternative, and having private repositories is perhaps a key feature - it started as a place for me to host my own random stuff. Monohub [dot] dev is the URL. It’s quite early in development, so it’s quite rough around the edges. It has PR support though. Hosted in EU, incorporated in EU. Would be happy if you tried it out — maybe it’s something for you. Edit: you can have a look at a public repository I have to see what it looks like now: https://monohub.dev/@tbayramov/efcore-audit-timestamps https://monohub.dev/@tbayramov/efcore-audit-timestamps

stephenr 6mo ago
Are you using an existing forge package (like eg Forgejo which codeberg is built on) or something custom?
- tbayramov 6mo ago
  Custom-built on top of libgit2.
  - NewJazz 6mo ago
    Not trying to be dismissive/snarky... But why?
    - tbayramov 6mo ago
      I started developing it as a slim wrapper around Git to support my own needs. At the same time, it is essential to have rich features like pull requests/code review, so I started focusing on designing a tool that strikes an appropriate balance between being minimalistic and functional. One thing that I focus on is allowing users to disable any feature they don't need.
WhyNotHugo 6mo ago
Doesn’t .dev belong to Google? An old choice or provider for a EU-focused hosting.

AlienRobot 6mo ago

To me that sounds like Github does too many things, not that Codeberg does too few.

pyth0 6mo ago
To me, and devs at large (given their market share), that sounds like convenience.
- account42 6mo ago
  Either take some responsibility and properly evaluate what that convenience means for you long term or don't complain when they leverage that vendor lock in at your disadvantage.
BeetleB 6mo ago
Indeed. A code repository alternative should definitely not require an equivalent to Github Pages.

sneak 6mo ago

I love Gitea and self-hosting it has been effortless, even through upgrades.

shlewis 6mo ago
Forgejo, even. Both awesome, truly capable Github alternatives.

shmerl 6mo ago

GitLab is probably a better option for that.

NewJazz 6mo ago
Yeah, but ooh boy is a private gitlab server complicated. Omnibus installation helps manage that, but if you outgrow it you're in for a complicated time. Also gitlab has cves like every other week... You're going to be on that upgrade train, unless you keep access locked down (no internet access!!) and accept the admittedly lower risk of a vulnerable gitlab server on your LAN/VPN network. Even if gitlab is updated fully, you're fighting bot crawlers 24/7.

reissbaker 6mo ago

FWIW, Pierre's "Code Storage" project [1] seems like it simplifies a lot of the operational overhead of running git servers, if what you want is "an API for git push". Not affiliated with the company (and I haven't tried it myself, so I can't vouch for how well it works), I just think it's a neat idea. 1: https://code.storage/ https://code.storage/

danpalmer 6mo ago
I think "Code Storage" (definitely needs a unique name), is less an API for git push (surely git push is that API?), and more an API for "git init"? It seems to be Git as infrastructure, rather than Git as a product. i.e. if you're using it for a single repo it's probably not a good fit, it's for products that themselves provide git repos.

portly 6mo ago

What you said about the pages is just plainly false information. I host my website on CodeBerg pages. https://docs.codeberg.org/codeberg-pages/ https://docs.codeberg.org/codeberg-pages/

Rapzid 6mo ago

> Moving from GitHub to Codeberg, for lazy people Step 1.) Stay on GitHub I think the internet has "GitHub Derangement Syndrome" right now. It's an outlet for people's frustration. The current trend reminds me a lot of the couple years we had where Game Developers were that outlet. They needed to "Wake up" and not "Go woke, go broke". An incredible amount of online discourse around gaming was hijacked by toxic negativity. I'm sure every individual has their really good logical reasons, but zooming out I think there is definitely a similar social pathology at play.

bsder 6mo ago
> I think the internet has "GitHub Derangement Syndrome" right now. It's an outlet for people's frustration. I would argue that the open source people aren't the only ones paying attention right now. If you are hosting proprietary code on Github, it has become clear that Microsoft is going to feed that into their AI training set. If you don't want that, you don't have a choice but to leave Github.
- beanjuiceII 6mo ago
  you just disable the setting
  - schubidubiduba 6mo ago
    ...and trust naively that that does anything
  - tcmart14 6mo ago
    By the same company who admits that disabling telemetry does not in fact disable telemetry and refuse to fix it.
  - RadiozRadioz 6mo ago
    I take it you've never disabled Windows telemetry settings and had them magically restored after an update? This company either does what it wants to abuse people, or is too incompetent to make their software work as instructed. Both possibilities are bad. I expect the same translates to GitHub.

singpolyma3 6mo ago

"spinning up your own git server" isn't really a thing. Any server with ssh and git installed is a git server.

peytongreen_dev 6mo ago

[dead]

gzread 6mo ago

Private repositories can be hosted anywhere you have SSH access. Write the URL as username@host:/path

RadiozRadioz 6mo ago

Why would you want your remote source control repository to host your homepage?

sieabahlpark 6mo ago

[dead]