| ▲ | jdw64 3 hours ago |
| People constantly cry out for decentralization.
In reality, however, most systems eventually end up centralized.
Perhaps when people ask for decentralization, they are actually seeking a new center where they can become the new pioneers.
It seems that when they feel they have no chance of winning under the existing rules, they use decentralization as a pretext to overturn the board. |
|
| ▲ | jayd16 an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| Decentralized means no single center. Of course people want it because the single centralized management is insufficient for some reason or another. There is no difference between what you say people cry for and what you say they actually want. |
|
| ▲ | ses1984 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If only you bothered to read the first line of the article, directly under the title: >I moved my code from GitHub to a self-hosted Forgejo |
| |
| ▲ | jdw64 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | My ponit was not against self-hosting. It was more about the symbolism. If the goal is decentralization,
“I moved to a personal forge I control” is the post's core idea.
But framing it as “leaving GitHub for Forgejo” inevitably creates a new flag to gather around. That may be useful and even necessary, but it also shows that decentralization movements often produce new centers, names, and identities. | | |
| ▲ | ses1984 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's software, which can be infinitely and freely copied, people are going to copy it, and they should, because not everyone should write their own service from scratch (on top of an scm they wrote from scratch (on top of a language and operating system they wrote from scratch too)). | | |
| ▲ | jdw64 an hour ago | parent [-] | | I never suggested building everything from scratch. However, Forgejo is ultimately just a new dependency. Does abandoning GitHub Actions for Forgejo Actions eliminate lock-in? No, it’s merely a shift in dependency. If the Forgejo core team announces tomorrow that their 'philosophy has changed' and overhauls the architecture, tens of thousands of 'independent' home servers will grumble, but they'll inevitably run git pull to update anyway. And eventually, they might migrate again. That cycle is inevitable, and I have no intention of denying it. The issue in the context of this post is that it rejects dependency on GitHub while presenting Forgejo as the escape. If your defense is 'why reinvent the wheel,' you are essentially proving my point: we are just choosing a new center to depend on. Beyond that, we might just be talking past each other at this point. I don't think you are wrong, and I have no intention of twisting your words. Your underlying point is likely this: GitHub's service quality has degraded, and with their aggressive AI strategies driving users away, it is strange to view the act of leaving negatively. I fully respect our difference of opinion there. I honestly just got a bit annoyed earlier because you framed your reply as if I hadn't even read the article. Anyway, let's leave it at that. There is no reason to misrepresent your views, and no reason for us to argue further. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jdw64 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | zsoltkacsandi 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think decentralization is the wrong answer for what people really need: portability. |
| |
| ▲ | nemomarx 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | What's the portability blocker with git? It's pretty easy to pull your repo and clone it to a new server, and you keep your history and everything I thought. | | |
| ▲ | zsoltkacsandi 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Nothing. That’s why SaaS providers like GitHub start to build up features like GitHub CI to lock people in. You can easily move the repo, but moving your full CI has a real cost that businesses will take into account when they are considering to move anything. What do you think, what is the business for GitHub in providing limitless private and public repo hosting? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | cyanydeez 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I think some people are mentally ill, and think decentralization is a libertarian ideal where they can have all benefits of society, but they don't have to pay for the roads, the fire department, etc. That some how, those things will spontaneously appear because of <free market babble>. Others recognize there's some kind of more comfortable middle ground where decentralization means the same as a town/city/state type of social good that is independent and capable of working without larger centralized structures. Having to work towards it, pay money into it, etc, are expected but because the work that goes into maintaining the infrastructure has a clear line of derivation (taxes clearly go to X, Y, Z) would be a benefit. It's typically the first class tho that dominates all conversations regarding decentralization, and that class includes the Epstein billionaires who just dont want laws to apply anywhere they want to do unethical, immoral and whatever. eg, money is the only law. |
| |
| ▲ | jdw64 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It could be a strategy, or it could be a sense of ethics. And your point makes sense, and I also agree with you. The first part of your comment is a bit harsh, but if you soften your reply a bit, it matches my thoughts. I'm giving you an upvote because I agree with your idea. | | |
|
