| 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/ |
| |
| ▲ | noirscape 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | shimman 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Seems fair to me, they're a nonprofit that exists in our lived reality and not an abusive monopolist that can literally throw a billion dollars to subsidize loss leaders. All it shows the world is why there needs to be a VAT like tax against US digital services to help drive a public option for developers. There's no reason why the people can't make our own solutions rather than be confined to abusive private US tech platforms. | | |
| ▲ | germandiago 8 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Adding taxes to things does not help anyone and goes against free choice. A better alternative would be to create the incentives so that companies like these can be born in Europe. |
| |
| ▲ | johnisgood 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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.) | | |
| ▲ | tjoff 24 minutes ago | parent [-] | | (SSG - static site generator) I mean, it is arguably much easier to just write the HTML page and upload it with FTP and everyone can see it. I never understood why github became a popular place to host your site in the first place. | | |
| ▲ | johnmaguire 16 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Because it doesn't require you to run an HTTP server, FTP server, or install an FTP client. | | |
| ▲ | tjoff 6 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Finding an HTTP+FTP server was easier than finding github. Your OS probably has a FTP client installed already, but finding another one is easier than finding and most definitely easier than learning git. And if you already knew how to write/make HTML you'd for sure already know all of that too. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | enraged_camel 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That FAQ snippet is insane to me. Maybe it's a cultural thing but I'd never do business with a company that has implicit threats in their ToS based on something so completely arbitrary. | | |
| ▲ | semiquaver 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Nonprofit, not a company. as far as I can tell they don’t accept payment for anything so they don’t want your “business”. | |
| ▲ | 0x3f an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The worst part is really the unclear procedure. If they set out terms that say they'll give me 4 weeks to migrate projects they don't like off the platform, with n email reminders in between, then that's not ideal but fine. As it is, I'd be worried I'll wake up to data loss if they get 'unhappy'. I have the same problem with sourcehut, actually, with their content policy. | |
| ▲ | 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
