| ▲ | jph 2 hours ago |
| Help encourage alternatives by trying Gitlab.com or Codeberg.org or Tangled.org or others, and please star some projects there to help motivate more options. Self-promo links below if you would like to star a few of mine good for developers. https://gitlab.com/architecture-decision-record https://gitlab.com/ways-of-working https://gitlab.com/coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure |
|
| ▲ | voidnullvalue an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| Codeberg isn't a viable infrastructure alternative. Its an opinionated community not a neutral host as they will delete repos based off subjective opinions on LLM usage and resource consumption. If continued hosting is dependent on moderators deciding if a project fits whatever the current philosophy is, and the whims of the moderation team, then I cannot consider it a serious choice for infrastructure. Infrastructure should be neutral. Codeberg is a social club |
| |
| ▲ | usrbinbash 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > Infrastructure should be neutral. Infrastructure can never be neutral, because infrastructure is owned and costs resources to run. All infrastructure comes with rules, be they the voting consensus of some e.V. or state-run entity, the whims of an individual on their private server, or the corporate interests of something owned by a, well, corporation. The problem isn't "neutral infrastructure". The problem is an overreliance on centralized services even though most such services are relatively easy to host yourself. I run my own DevOps server based entirely on OSS. Is it github? No. Does it what I need it to do? Absolutely. Do I get 99.999% uptime? No, but when it's down or slow, I can fix it. When the corporate platform is down, I can only wait. And "network effects" are not a good argument. Open Source was wildly successful long before centraliced DevOps platforms. And in hindsight, the added friction of getting in touch with projects before being able to send them any code, was a benefit not a disadvantage. Because it acted as a barrier of entry that disincentivized alot of subpar code from hitting these projects in the first place. | |
| ▲ | jph an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Can you suggest a viable infrastructure alternative? My wishlist: free for open source and paid for closed source, able to do simple projects that are handwritten and also complex projects including AI LLM code that needs CI/CD/auditing, and hosting in the UK or EU. Aside, I donate money to Codeberg because I think Codeberg is a wonderful service with strong commitment to free open source, and because I host some larger projects and AI projects that are for public welfare social good. | | |
| ▲ | icy an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | https://tangled.org would love to have you :) We're hosted in the EU, and are free for open source, forever. Tangled is also designed to be federated from ground up, so you get to own your infra & data while still participating in an open network. | | | |
| ▲ | chilmers an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I feel like any service that is free for open source is going to struggle if it gets significant adoption and becomes a default target for hosting LLM generated code. If even MS/GitHub cannot scale to the current demand, what hope do smaller and less well-funded alternatives have? | | |
| ▲ | voidnullvalue 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Rate limiting the infrastructure-hammering actions (mainly CI stuff) would be a reasonable method to handle this. |
|
| |
| ▲ | pojntfx an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Codeberg is one public flagship instance. They are not neutral and don't claim to be. Decisions on what to host are made via elections by e.V. members. Other platforms (GitHub, GitLab, Tangled etc.) will eventually run into this same thing as well, e.g. how GitHub responds to DMCA requests, the difference with Codeberg is that there are elections which decide on what gets hosted on the main instance. For hosting slop or running a ton of actions, the recommendation is to self-host Forgejo directly instead, meaning that you, not the e.V. pays for the consequences, and you'd use the future AP federation support for cross-instance support. Forgejo is particularly simple to self-host as well, and lots of people do it (ffmpeg, Fedora and more). That way, you get to set your own rules and e.V. election results have no effect on you. | |
| ▲ | 8bb6ce5638bdc an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [flagged] | |
| ▲ | superze an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sounds more like a cult rather than a social club. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | giancarlostoro 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Rather use BitBucket or GitLab really, both GitLab and BitBucket have been around nearly as long as GitHub? Apparently BitBucket and GitHub are both 2008, and GitLab is 2011. The others you mentioned could go on a whim. |
| |
| ▲ | tcfhgj 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I don't know BitBucket, but GitLab is felt extremely bloated and slow - Codeberg is much leaner and faster |
|
|
| ▲ | 1matin an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| GitHub being ruined after the AI hype is a shallow take imo.
The root problem isn't AI, Microsoft, or Azure; It's why people keep _trusting_ centralized infra. GitLab and Codeberg can absolutely become trash, each in their own way. The solution isn't just "migrating off of GitHub"; it's "migrating to a platform that is unownable by design, not only hope". And there are no good enough decentralized alternatives to GitHub yet. Tangled.org's decentralization has serious holes.
Radicle made an alien universe; a niche within a niche. Also, it's already having problems with ISPs:
https://radicle.dev/2026/04/23/domain-move |
| |
| ▲ | moffkalast 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Azure was arguably as garbage four years ago as it is today, the only thing that's changed in the past few years is MS mandated vibe coding, and suddenly Github has an outage every week? A ridiculous coincidence if it's not causal. |
|
|
| ▲ | aic0d3r 17 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| gitlab has my vote |