FWIW, SourceHut offers Mercurial hosting.
:(
I miss Kiln from FogBugz (yes, it was years ago)
So no, it's not reliable. The platform is at the behest of a small group of ideologists, who might change their stance on any topic on a whim.
GitHub on the contrary continues to host code that has been OFAC sanctioned. I'd rather stay with them.
SourceHut bans customers purely on ideological grounds?
If true, this would change my opinion about this service diametrically. That would result in: Never ever make business with them.
Yes, it's a really bad move, you pay for the service but the nature of your code is not welcomed.
Like you i was a bit shocked too...well and a bit sad since i was thinking that a hosting i pay for should give me more freedom and not less, and that code(knowledge?) should be free.
Sourcehut's code gives a user the freedom to use it for whatever they want - including hosting their own crypto-currency projects.
sr.ht the "service" on the other hand is not required to do a thing and denying users the ability to host those projects doesn't contradict any licence the code has been released under.
The point is that's it's not the business of a hoster to decide what people may host.
A hoster gets money for hosting things. Ideally the hoster does not even know what he's hosting. (Until there is a problem with that that someone else points out to the hoster; which the hoster should than just ignore in case this someone isn't an authority with a valid court order in hands).
As a parallel: Just imagine your ISP would start to filter the web sites you may visit based on some arbitrary ideological believes. That's more or less the same to what's happening on SourceHut, imho.
I can understand one being upset that sourcehut's policy changed "after" paying for an account, but you can just stop paying for the service and move to a different forge. Being butthurt that people have different principles than you is not cool.
Do you have any arguments that would bake this claim? Where's the difference?
> If internet providers would not be in the habit of snooping and filtering on their customer's traffic […]
What are you talking about? This does not happen as it would be illegal. At least in civilized countries.
(Given a court order for lawful interception there may be exceptions to that, of course).
> net neutrality
This term means something else.
> we need HTTPS
For other reasons.
One of them being rogue states that snoop on people's traffic. [Not looking in the direction of north America now].
> VPNs
That's similar to HTTPS.
Also it circumvents state level censoring, which is needed by now in quite some countries.
> Tor
That's even more in the direction of hiding form state surveillance.
Your ISP usually knows that you're using Tor…
> Dark Web
That's a very unclear term, btw. And it has nothing to do with anything an ISP does.
> but the fact is that internet providers are in fact snooping for themselves
Like I said: Not in civilized countries, as this would be a breach of the constitutional right to privacy of correspondence.
> law enforcement
That's a tangent. Everybody besides a culprit needs to cooperate with law enforcement.
> denying customers the use of certain ports or protocols
You could do this in theory. But you wouldn't be selling internet access anymore in this case. This would be like AOL or Compuserve back then.
I don't talk about opensource or any license, i talk about that when i pay for a service i can host any code i created for whatever use it is.
But talking about licenses (since you don't think it's one of the freedom's) that's exactly what definition of opensource means:
>6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
And when you pay for a service, you can do whatever that service allows you to do, which in this case is "not" crypto-currency projects.
You had that misunderstanding not i.
>you can do whatever that service allows you to do
Yeah look i stop here if you think that's a good decision.
If you're doing scammy things, stick to fossil and host it on your own.
> Q: How much of this is due to not wanting build/pipeline servers getting abused for mining purposes?
> A: None: the mining incidents stopped entirely when we started charging for CI and it stopped being profitable to do it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33404713
As you can see, CI had nothing to do with their decision. The ToS changes specifically refer to source code hosting.