4 ms·

You will never get around the free rider problem. If I want to create 100 repos of vibe coded projects every month someone will have to pay for it. At this po

You will never get around the free rider problem. If I want to create 100 repos of vibe coded projects every month someone will have to pay for it. At this point, just give me an honest version of GitHub that tells me what things actually cost. 5$ a repo, and another 1 per gb stored in LFS, cool.

icy 6mo ago
The cool thing is you can just host your own knot then. Host repos of whatever size you want.
- cedws 6mo ago
  Man I really want to like this thing but this jargon is so stupid.
  - OneDeuxTriSeiGo 6mo ago
    The jargon is just naming the free-standing components after rope/string related things. i.e. tangle, knot, spindle, etc.
    - fgfarben 6mo ago
      I think they're mad because 'knot' is a furry fetish term.
      - sakjur 6mo ago
        Pretty much every word in English seems to have an innuendo meaning to someone, do anyone truly care past the age of 15? I find Tangled's language a bit annoying because I'm pretty sure if this caught on it's even more single word concept rather needlessly. If the protocol is called Knot, then call a server a Knot instance or Knot server. If the runner protocol is called Spindle, each server which responds to that could be a Spindle runner. That'll serve two functions: It'll let people contextually hook the terms up against existing terms and still retain the option of evolving into singular word concepts if they prove successful enough for that to happen. From my point of view as a non-native speaker, the frequent overloading of commonplace words add to the confusion of learning English. I don't like that. It's far from a big hurdle, but just big enough to earn a soft little sigh from me. Your comment was the only thing that made me even care to comment: Isn't it rather unlikely that the person you're commenting on takes issue with a kink rather than any other reason why "knot" and "spindle" might be poor choices? Who knows, they might even have a good reason, but you started out with assuming bad faith and at least I tend to just leave conversations at that point.
    - tardedmeme 6mo ago
      Just call them what they are. Federations/networks, servers, repositories...
      - OneDeuxTriSeiGo 6mo ago
        You got pretty much none of the names right. Tangle: the appview server of the tangled network. Knot: the git server that holds an arbitrary quantity of git repos. Spindle: CI servers/runners/nodes. Each one is the name of a component and the name for those components is pretty arbitrary.
        account42 6mo ago
        > You got pretty much none of the names right. That really proves his point though - the cute names are pretty much useless for an outsider.
        OneDeuxTriSeiGo 6mo ago
        That's not the point. The point is that there is no good, clean name. You can either adopt the brand specific name another org/productline picked for their version (which is somewhat similar but often not the same). The equivalent of a knot in gitlab is a gitlab instance or for forgejo a forgejo instance. There's just not really a clean equivalent. A knot is a git server but it's not the git host/remote. The remote is the appview (which is the software stack called "the tangle"). The knot isn't just a storage backend either. The knot is a little bit of a lot of things from the existing models so it just does not and cannot fit cleanly into an existing definition. Doubly so because what the knot does today is not the only things it will do. It will likely gain additional functionality in the future so to give it a reductive label now will only add to the confusion. Instead it's a knot. That's what it is. And you can explain what a knot is if someone asks but at the end of the day it's a knot and what that means is specific to this project and network.
sambuccid 6mo ago
Similar UI but donation based and public repo only: codeberg.org Fixed low cost but different UI: sourcehut.org
- 999900000999 6mo ago
  Source Hut looks cool, the website is confusing though. What build systems do I get for 4$ a month ? Getting my friends to feel comfortable moving ( so they can view the UX ) too will be a challenge.
  - sambuccid 6mo ago
    I like their build system, is very simple to use, based on shell scrips, and has some neat features, like ssh-ing into the machine that had a failed build, or spinning a build with a custom manifest file (useful when you need to iterate quickly). Although it doesn't have all the "plugins" and other stuff that CI tools have today, it provides fairly "standard" points of integration For more info: https://man.sr.ht/builds.sr.ht/ https://man.sr.ht/builds.sr.ht/ I agree the website is a bit confusing at first, but after spending a couple of hours on it you can easily see how it's organised, for example to display branches and files it uses the more basic git terminology (e.g. main branch -> tree, list of commits -> log, branches and tags -> refs)

icy 6mo ago

The cool thing is you can just host your own knot then. Host repos of whatever size you want.

cedws 6mo ago
Man I really want to like this thing but this jargon is so stupid.
- OneDeuxTriSeiGo 6mo ago
  The jargon is just naming the free-standing components after rope/string related things. i.e. tangle, knot, spindle, etc.
  - fgfarben 6mo ago
    I think they're mad because 'knot' is a furry fetish term.
    - sakjur 6mo ago
      Pretty much every word in English seems to have an innuendo meaning to someone, do anyone truly care past the age of 15? I find Tangled's language a bit annoying because I'm pretty sure if this caught on it's even more single word concept rather needlessly. If the protocol is called Knot, then call a server a Knot instance or Knot server. If the runner protocol is called Spindle, each server which responds to that could be a Spindle runner. That'll serve two functions: It'll let people contextually hook the terms up against existing terms and still retain the option of evolving into singular word concepts if they prove successful enough for that to happen. From my point of view as a non-native speaker, the frequent overloading of commonplace words add to the confusion of learning English. I don't like that. It's far from a big hurdle, but just big enough to earn a soft little sigh from me. Your comment was the only thing that made me even care to comment: Isn't it rather unlikely that the person you're commenting on takes issue with a kink rather than any other reason why "knot" and "spindle" might be poor choices? Who knows, they might even have a good reason, but you started out with assuming bad faith and at least I tend to just leave conversations at that point.
  - tardedmeme 6mo ago
    Just call them what they are. Federations/networks, servers, repositories...
    - OneDeuxTriSeiGo 6mo ago
      You got pretty much none of the names right. Tangle: the appview server of the tangled network. Knot: the git server that holds an arbitrary quantity of git repos. Spindle: CI servers/runners/nodes. Each one is the name of a component and the name for those components is pretty arbitrary.
      - account42 6mo ago
        > You got pretty much none of the names right. That really proves his point though - the cute names are pretty much useless for an outsider.
        OneDeuxTriSeiGo 6mo ago
        That's not the point. The point is that there is no good, clean name. You can either adopt the brand specific name another org/productline picked for their version (which is somewhat similar but often not the same). The equivalent of a knot in gitlab is a gitlab instance or for forgejo a forgejo instance. There's just not really a clean equivalent. A knot is a git server but it's not the git host/remote. The remote is the appview (which is the software stack called "the tangle"). The knot isn't just a storage backend either. The knot is a little bit of a lot of things from the existing models so it just does not and cannot fit cleanly into an existing definition. Doubly so because what the knot does today is not the only things it will do. It will likely gain additional functionality in the future so to give it a reductive label now will only add to the confusion. Instead it's a knot. That's what it is. And you can explain what a knot is if someone asks but at the end of the day it's a knot and what that means is specific to this project and network.

sambuccid 6mo ago

Similar UI but donation based and public repo only: codeberg.org Fixed low cost but different UI: sourcehut.org

999900000999 6mo ago
Source Hut looks cool, the website is confusing though. What build systems do I get for 4$ a month ? Getting my friends to feel comfortable moving ( so they can view the UX ) too will be a challenge.
- sambuccid 6mo ago
  I like their build system, is very simple to use, based on shell scrips, and has some neat features, like ssh-ing into the machine that had a failed build, or spinning a build with a custom manifest file (useful when you need to iterate quickly). Although it doesn't have all the "plugins" and other stuff that CI tools have today, it provides fairly "standard" points of integration For more info: https://man.sr.ht/builds.sr.ht/ https://man.sr.ht/builds.sr.ht/ I agree the website is a bit confusing at first, but after spending a couple of hours on it you can easily see how it's organised, for example to display branches and files it uses the more basic git terminology (e.g. main branch -> tree, list of commits -> log, branches and tags -> refs)