Hacker News Reader

Comment by ndsipa_pomu | Hacker News Reader

Looks like relying on a centralised github isn't the most reliable choice. It's convenient, but if you don't want to be held ransom by Microsoft's decisions, then a self hosted repository has to be the way forwards.

View on HN

Yeah, someone should invent a version control system that does not rely on some central entity but is actually distributed.

I know you're joking, but what I suppose would need to happen is for someone to also come up with ways to do federated code discovery, search, browsing and ways to show off contributions. For issues and PRs there's mailing lists, but it seems the young uns are appalled by that, so maybe that too.

The problems are not discoverability, but servers. GitHub is mainly successful because they simply offer services for free, and maintain them well. Most other features they offer is just a bonus. Though, at this point the weight of their accumulated fame, features and repos is also a reason for continuation, as long as they behave well enough.

Maybe Fossil SCM by the sqlite authors would be a starting point?

Gitea and forks exist, Fossil is also a plausible alternative although it seems not everyone likes its workflow. Maybe discovery could be handled simillar to Mastodon through ActivityPub, I think it wouldn't even be too hard to integrate into existing Git code forges.

Forgejo [1] (a fork of Gitea) is working on integrating activitypub [2].

[1] https://forgejo.org/ [2] https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/59

Awesome, this could change the status quo of code forges. Also tangentially related, but just the fact that Forgejo is self hosting gives me more confidence in it than Gitea (which is on GitHub LOL), hopefully both projects share any improvements between each other.

It's strange isn't it how people keep inventing distributed systems such as the internet itself, and yet money/politics/laziness entices people to use a centralised resource with all the problems that go with that.

Tragedy of the Commons

How do we know how to trust it without a central entity looking over its quality OR the next best thing such as provide usage statistics and community tools like an issue tracker etc.

Linux's model of trusting people seems to work for them. Github doesn't guarentee quality - the primary developer(s) were always the artiber of quality. There are also various projects managing issue tracking inside or alongside git, or git alternatives that integrate an issue tracker.

Yeah, but the problem is that if you have some project running on someone's server, how do you find the issues related to that project if they are not on that same server and managed by that same project owner?

If there is a security issue with some project on GitHub, then you can ask GitHub to look at it and they will take the project down. This cannot be done with projects running on someone's web server.

Git maybe decentralized but working in a group, making releases, pull requests etc. That is not part of git and that needs to be decentralized.

At some point, someone will (re)discover the Linux Kernel development model again and announce that chatting over a mailing list, reporting bugs over (self-hosted) Bugzilla and sending patches via mail is the best thing since sliced bread ;)

That's called source hut (https://sourcehut.org), which I use with great delight.

SourceHut will ban you for being racist too. Or anything the founder thinks seems bigoted enough. [1]

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33418598

If GitHub can suspend accounts because of "links on wiki led to sites that contained pictures that didn't align with github's values"[0] (as we have seen with AUTOMATIC1111 [1]), Source Hut can reject service to anyone they want. It's their business and their decision.

At least the owner (Drew) is direct and honest about it.

We, as consumers have the right to not make business with companies which we don't like, too. I have left GitHub over Copilot issue for example.

If you don't agree with views or ToS of Source Hut, don't use it. It's that simple.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34262598

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34257818

Yeah, sure, but I was just letting other consumers know Drew's position, so they could make their decision about whether to use it or not. I didn't even pass judgment on it in my comment. I made it a simple statement of fact.

> I didn't even pass judgment on it in my comment.

That's of course true, however only putting SourceHut into the picture like that creates an unintended insinuation[0], like only SourceHut is doing such things.

Any and every company will make such decisions about their users, regardless of their size. We all need to keep that in mind.

I just wanted to balance your comment, actually. Not to imply that you're pointing fingers or something.

On the other hand, I'd rather know who made the decision about an outcome involving me, rather than getting canned e-mail replies churned out by corporate machinery.

[0]: https://xkcd.com/641/

> On the other hand, I'd rather know who made the decision about an outcome involving me, rather than getting canned e-mail replies churned out by corporate machinery.

This is a great point.

Huh, now I regret giving SourceHut money. Looks like self-hosting is only sane, judgment-free option.

sourcehut has some pretty major ui stumbles IMO, particularly the unlinked nature of a project, eg: Get from https://git.sr.ht/~tsileo/microblog.pub to the ticket list. The ticket writing interface is pretty lackluster, mostly because its stuffed over the side and previewing shrinks the interface each time.

Pretty sure its an intentional, or at least a side effect, of the component nature of srht's codebase (afaik), where each part is a separate service. The rest is from its no/minimal-js design.

I don't make it, so I'm not saying it must be changed, but I find it annoying to use at best, and doubt I am alone. But they're probably not targeting me so ...

It's also pretty slow, not sure if it has global hosting.

I do very much appreciate that it doesn't try to gamify anything, I wish I could disable gh from tracking follows/stars/stats - I can greasemonkey them away but I still know they exist, which leaves me the temptation to check. Strictly a personal issue but it still exists.

> previewing shrinks the interface each time.

I don't think it's intended and I'm failing to reproduce the issue you mentioned in Firefox 108. Maybe report a bug to the mailing list?

> The ticket writing interface is pretty lackluster...

I think this simplicity is intentional, and as an old folk, I actually dig that look. Having almost no JS around (I failed to find any so far) is also nice from my point of view.

Being composed a lot of parts feels chunky sometimes, but being able to compose projects out of repos, and having free-hanging repos without projects is also a great plus from my point of view. It fits how I work perfectly.

> It's also pretty slow, not sure if it has global hosting.

It's currently hosted in a single server in the US, but it will be moved to Europe (Netherlands I assume) to a more powerful infrastructure, so the speed will recover.

At the end of the day, while it's not perfect, it's perfect for me, my mindset and philosophy today. I'm a happy paying customer. Also Drew listens feedback and answers frankly, which I like a lot.

SourceHut as a solution to centralized censorship is...questionable.

SourceHut bans anything blockchain/crypto related from their platform.

> SourceHut as a solution to centralized censorship is...ironic.

It's not a solution to a centralized censorship. You can self-host it if you want.

> SourceHut literally bans anything blockchain/crypto related from their platform.

It's their platform, they can decide what to do with it. However, I support SourceHut's view on this, because I also didn't see anything useful came out of blockchain/cryptocurrency scene.

Moreover, you can send your project in for vetting if you are so sure that it's something really beneficial. The ban is not a curtain / we'll ban you no matter what variety.

To directly cite:

> We will exercise discretion when applying this rule. If you believe that your use-case for cryptocurrency or blockchain is not plagued by these social problems, you may ask for permission to host it on SourceHut, or appeal its removal, by contacting support. [0]

[0]: https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-31-tos-update-cryptocurre...

can't they just do that development on the blockchain itself?

Git is the original blockchain, actually. :D

Just distribute it to many hosts, and you're done. Post-commit hooks on one server can do that with no effort.

A TV company built a CDN like that. They pushed the data to Git, and it propagated in a fanning out fashion.

First someone will have to buy GitHub from Microsoft and we will have to write a bunch or articles about how it is bad for someone to be able to control source code.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com