3 ms·
Bye, Bye GitHub
- ramon156 1mo ago[flagged]
- iozguradem 1mo agoIt's not an AI post, but believe what you want.
- Aldipower 1mo agoThat did not read like an AI post and anyway it contained a lot of information and points a share! That is the point.
- thrill 1mo agoBeing the “first(!) post” to complain about AI, correctly or not, is the new street cred.
- skrebbel 1mo ago> I mean, come on. We all look like a bunch of wankers. Please, remember the old times, like the 2000s. I mean this in the least dismissive way possible, cause I quite like it, but this isn't good enough prose for the average LLM.
- luciandan 1mo agoSo why no self-hosted GitLab then?
- p4bl0 1mo agoGitLab is also getting worse and worse. They're going full-in on AI and each new release is more cluttered with useless features and requires more and more resources to run smoothly. After six years self-hosting a GitLab instance for a few hundred users (among which a few dozens are quite active), I abandoned this summer and I'm currently migrating the instance to Forgejo.
- gravypod 1mo agoIt's a shame because I like GitLabs UX and runners much more than other forges. I've been considering forking gitlab and removing complexity. GitLab uses multiple GB of memory idle with no users. It's sad.
- p4bl0 1mo agoI agree. GitLab UI was great and the simplicity of its CI/CD is unequaled on other forges. It's sad that Forgejo went with the actions model from GitHub which introduce a lot of useless complexity. But it seems that Woodpecker CI [1] could be a good candidate to replace GitLab CI, as it uses very similar concepts and workflow description files. [1] https://woodpecker-ci.org/ https://woodpecker-ci.org/
- multisport 1mo agoIME switching git providers is very hard, especially getting off of github. Most companies have insane numbers of integrations, automations, etc on top of GH. So yeah, its on us, but its also pretty simple algebra: does GH's downtime affect us more than the cost of switching? Most companies the answer is no. When people ask why people aren't switching to Gitlab, ADO, Bitbucket, etc, I believe this is the reason.
- perching_aix 1mo agoI really do wonder if the disruptions caused by the outages are starting to match the disruptions caused by a migration (which at least has a foreseeable end to it, theoretically). Like even with the "will somebody please think of the operational costs" aspect, I really do wonder if the good old lock-in extortion math actually still holds in GH's favor.
- monkaiju 1mo agoMaybe for big companies that irresponsibly vendor-locked themselves, but I work at a SMB (~60 employees) and we switched to Forgejo in a couple days
- guywithahat 1mo agoI would not call it irresponsible. If you have a big, long running project you're going to want to develop complex pipelines and build processes to help with development and testing. This will save a lot of time and create a more consistent workflow, but switching vendors can require redoing work that was built over years.
- rogerrogerr 1mo ago> you're going to want to develop complex pipelines and build processes to help with development and testing Opinion: Complex build processes are great. Complex _pipelines_ are a trap. I'm in a position to see the output of a lot of teams at a very large company. The teams that have complex build processes _that they can run locally_, and then have some trivial CI yaml to run the build, are doing great. The teams that designed their build around CI are brittle and eventually end up in a state where they can _only_ do some parts of their build on CI. IME it's worth it to set very hard boundaries shaped like: (1) Everything needs to be able to be run locally (usually in a devcontainer), (2) CI config shall be stupid simple. If you have more than like two lines in a script section, it goes into a Tools/Build script file that must work locally and is just called in a one-line CI script. #1 guarantees you can operate without CI, and #2 guarantees you can move CI providers trivially.
- n3storm 1mo agoGitea installs like a Breeze
- thrill 1mo agoA vanilla git server works great too.
- josefritzishere 1mo ago[flagged]
- coolThingsFirst 1mo agoIt’s only fair when the big guy steals intellectual property from the small guy.
- cdrnsf 1mo agoI've had exactly zero issues hosting Forgejo. GitHub is only going to get worse.
- dabedee 1mo agoI agree with the sentiment of the post, and Github deserves every bit of it. Tried codeberg (which uses forgejo) and I am very happy with it personally.
- ralph84 1mo agoWhat frontier model did GitHub train? All of the frontier labs scraped GitHub like they scraped everything else. While GitHub has certainly tried to profit from AI, directing ire at GitHub for frontier labs training on public code seems misplaced.
- saulpw 1mo agoMicrosoft owns GitHub.
- throwuxiytayq 1mo agoWhat frontier model did Microsoft train?
- saulpw 1mo agohttps://microsoft.ai/news/building-a-hillclimbing-machine-launching-seven-new-mai-models/ https://microsoft.ai/news/building-a-hillclimbing-machine-la...
- throwuxiytayq 1mo agoAll benchmarks I could find are Microsoft-reported. I don’t see it listed on any leaderboards. Still, looks interesting enough. Also, I wonder what this means in practice, especially in terms of GitHub: > MAI-Thinking-1 was trained on clean and appropriately licensed data, with AI-generated content excluded from pre-training. Aaaand the question answers itself, because the above sentence is now gone from the page, replaced with: > We trained it from the ground up on clean, traceable and enterprise-grade data, without distillation from third-party models.
- megagpt2 1mo agoMicrosoft owns 27% of OpenAI.
- onesandofgrain 1mo agoWelcome, i left 2 years ago, i'm surprised more haven't. I use https://sharemygit.com https://sharemygit.com to share repos around.
- pico303 1mo agoThe problem is nothing competes with GitHub. I know, GitLab. Gitea. Bitbucket. They have some features, but it’s like suggesting I drive a Nissan Sentra because my BMW breaks down once in a while.
- bigstrat2003 1mo agoMy dude, that Nissan will get you from point A to point B just as effectively as a BMW will. Your analogy is working against you, not for you.
- ranger_danger 1mo agoYes, but they were looking at it from the perspective of features, not reliability.
- pico303 1mo agoHeck, if I just want effective, I guess I can also email or text patches.
- vladkens 1mo agoGitHub is going the wrong way, but there really is nothing workable for open-source projects except GitHub. I don’t want to register on all these random GitHub killers just to open an issue or PR in a random project I’ve interacted with. For personal or team setups, any third-party service will work well.
- ModernMech 1mo ago> I don’t want to register on all these random GitHub killers You don't have to; all the GitHub killers support GitHub sign on
- bigstrat2003 1mo ago> GitHub is going the wrong way, but there really is nothing workable for open-source projects except GitHub. Open source projects existed just fine before GitHub, and they will exist just fine if they choose to move off GitHub as well. It's not a big deal if people won't do drive by contributions any more.
- megagpt2 1mo agoOr if they have to do them by email or instant messenger. What's wrong with joining a Matrix channel to send a drive-by bug report?
- jamesponddotco 1mo agoWith SourceHut banning projects that use LLMs[1], I’m looking to migrate this weekend. While I can host Forgejo just fine[2], doing so means no one will be able to contribute to the projects, since federation isn’t a thing yet. Heck, getting contributions on SourceHut was hard enough, and it doesn’t even require people to register an account. I might need to bite the bullet and go with GitHub. Regardless of what I think about the company and Microsoft, it’s where the people are. [1]: https://sourcehut.org/blog/2026-08-27-tos-changes-and-llms/ https://sourcehut.org/blog/2026-08-27-tos-changes-and-llms/ [2]: And already do locally, as a mirror to SourceHut.
- oscarcp 1mo agoIt ridiculous, Codeberg did the same. I get why, really, I do, but it's creating a severe damage that will be abused by a third evil actor that will take over the wasteland of GitHub and GitLab by creating a service that will allow anything (until it is enshittified of course) Outcome? Everyone on their own self-hosted git servers, zero collaboration.
- dmix 1mo ago> Outcome? Everyone on their own self-hosted git servers, zero collaboration. Everyone sticking to Github, then a year or two from now Github resolves their scaling issues and the competitors miss their window of opportunity to disrupt
- oscarcp 1mo agoNot if they keep putting everything behind a paywall. I'm not going to pay 60 (20/user/month) euros per month to be able to restrict pushes to main. It's absurd. Sorry, this specifically gets my blood boiling so I might be a bit more aggressive than needed.
- megagpt2 1mo agoWhat kind of collaboration were you getting on your random GitHub uploads? I didn't get any. This collaboration thing seems like an excuse if people have a way to contact you. Codeberg only banned projects that are majority LLM-coded. They did not ban all use of LLMs.
- halyconWays 1mo ago[flagged]
- ModernMech 1mo agoAre you talking about this https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/12/women-considered-better-coders-hide-gender-github https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/12/women-con... That was 12 years ago. I think probably those feminists are not the cause of GitHub's recent troubles.
- halyconWays 1mo agoYou don't think that sudden, radical, and politically motivated change in the core leadership of a company doesn't have long-lasting and compounding effects?
- ModernMech 1mo agoI think you should be able to find a better proximal cause. Like being bought by Microsoft, which happened in the intervening period. That would be a better explanation than feminists from a decade+ ago.
- halyconWays 1mo agoCompany: "We're no longer going to focus on merit as a virtue." Company slowly becomes worse and worse. Me: "That starting gun surely signaled the start of the decline." You: "That was a long time ago. Couldn't have been that." What are second-order consequences?
- ModernMech 1mo agoYou're ignoring that the company grew 10x since then and was colonized, the CEO you're angry about was replaced, so insofar you're claiming this culture change happened 10 years ago which precipitated problems until today, you're conveniently ignoring a much larger culture change which more easily explains what's happened. For your explanation to work you'd have to explain how the change survived the Microsoft acquisition and that culture actually persisted.
- oscarcp 1mo agoI was about to mention Codeberg but I saw the last two changes to the terms of use and they're basically digging themselves into the ground with so many restrictions
- whalesalad 1mo agoIt’s like the restaurant that is cash only and refuses to accept credit cards. Like bruh, what?
- megagpt2 1mo agoIs your a majority of your project LLM code?
- oscarcp 1mo agoNo but I use LLMs for repetitive tasks and chores mainly, the ToS forbids any use of LLMs, not just "reasonable" or "unreasonable" use. And even if it wasn't my case, if someone wants to purely vibecode, they should be free to do it. As I mentioned in another comment, I understand the restriction, I really do, it's not abut the code and more about the complications posed by automated LLM flows (unending shit PRs, merges, thousands of CI jobs running for no reason...) but still, I don't think it's the way to go.
- nshm 1mo agoBtw, did anyone notice they removed access to "who starred the project" recently. You can only check your own repos, not external ones. It was very nice to find related people before.
- Klaster_1 1mo agohttps://github.blog/changelog/2026-06-30-upcoming-access-restrictions-to-public-api-endpoints-and-ui-views/ https://github.blog/changelog/2026-06-30-upcoming-access-res...
- JLO64 1mo agoI'm in the middle of a Forgejo migration myself for similar reasons. What finally pushed me over the edge was a hour long Actions outage that prevented me from pushing a hot fix for a bug to my webapp. (I relied on GH Actions to build and push an ARM Docker image.) For work that a business depends on, I can't recommend GitHub Actions. It's not just the outages that personally annoyed me, but the fact that I'm paying for it as well. So far I'm loving Forgejo and have no regrets!
- stephenway 1mo agoI'm curious what you're replacing Actions with on the Forgejo side, and whether running that infra yourself feels like part of the benefit or another thing you'd rather not own
- ikidd 1mo agoForgejo has Runners that you can install on another server and register with Forgejo Actions. There might be 3rd party Runners you can pay to use, I've just run my own on a hardened VM.
- schmookeeg 1mo agoMy gh actions were straightforward and moved to forgejo runners with zero drama.
- arbadacarba 1mo agostay discoverable with your local git by annoucing it to nostr git servers gittr.space
- leej111 1mo ago[dead]
- leanuard 1mo ago[dead]
- Preston67 1mo ago[dead]