- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
The right time to look elsewhere was when Microsoft bought it.
The next best time was when viable alternatives like GitLab and later, Codeberg appeared.
The next best time was when it became clear that they were stealing your code to feed into their sparkly autocomplete and were going to sell it back to you.
The next best time was when they dumped a bunch of vibecoded garbage into the codebase and killed the uptime.
The next best time is now.
You don’t even have to migrate all your stuff. Just start all your new projects on Codeberg, or GitLab, or something self-hosted. Once you get used to the new place, you can migrate your old stuff when you’re ready.
This is exactly it, Microsoft always makes things about themselves. They change everything, mostly for the worse.
Comments like this are so frustrating to see, as my company goes backwards, moving from Gitlab to GitHub.
I mean, didn’t Gitlab also say they were going all-in on AI?
There’s no major forge you can use for proprietary projects that isn’t shitty.
Don’t remind me …. The doublespeak at my company …… we had to use GitHub for the built in AI, but couldn’t even evaluate GitLab’s AI because it costs extra
Forgejo, if you self host it, you can use it for propietary projects
(And it’s as easy as deploying a docker container and hitting start, really)Yes, but then you hold all the liability for your shit going missing. The entire point of using a managed service like github or gitlab is that you have someone to sue.
deleted by creator
Codeberg/Forgejo also have a simple button to migrate directly on the web UI
Is your code free for others to do whatever the fuck they want to with it? : codeberg
Do you want to put certain restrictions (eg financial)? Gitlab
Codeberg doesn’t allow you to use AI with your repos. Even if it is just writing your docs for you.
Radicle is decentralised though!
You can always self host forgejo, but yeah, codeberg is an opinionated place, I suspect primarily due to resource constraints. Not a github replacement and not really trying to be.
I do run a local instance but what I do is then replicate certain repos out to Github and Codeberg. (The ones I like to keep public)
Yeah, I don’t think I have a codeberg going at the moment because I want to do CC4NC.
There’s like some scripts I don’t mind people making derived commercial works since they’re fucking tiny, but other than that, I don’t want people getting rich off my code.
I also have lots of scripts I find handy but would never share. I just need a safe third party to host it.
Doesn’t allow you to use AI with your repos
You say that like it’s a bad thing, that’s a EXCELLENT THING, get the slop outta open source
That’s completely irrational but you do you. Maintaining documentation is one of the best and safest uses for LLMs in coding - devs generally write bad documentation because they don’t want to do it.
You say irrational, I say it’s rational not to trust the predictive text on steroids that often just makes shit up.
I say irrational because clearly there is a bias here and not an experience being referenced.
So you’re saying they never hallucinate? Ever?
I have evidence to the contrary;
https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-copilot-election-questions-misinformation-2024-2
https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2025/10/28/lawyers-ai-hallucinations-chatgpt/
https://www.envive.ai/post/case-study-of-air-canadas-chatbot
I mean yes, Microsoft and slopcode probably plays a role, but it only got really bad once the LLM mass scraping started, for which I assume Github is also a major target.
And running your own public git forge is a real PITA these days for similar reasons.
Codeberg then
Radicle https://radicle.dev/
Any alternatives with a good UI? Really don’t like the ones for codeberg or gitlab tbh, and GitHub is bearable
Honestly, for me the Forgejo/Codeberg UI is the best out there, I actually like it even better than GitHub. I think you just need to get used to it. If you had been using Codeberg the last 10 years and just discovered GitHub today, you’d take one look at it and say the UI is bad.
Maybe yeah
What do you find bad about Forgejo / Codeberg’s UI?
For forgejo I’m actually not too sure - “feel” is vague but the best I’ve got, maybe someone more UI inclined has clearer thoughts on it. Or maybe I just need to get used to it. It’s certainly much better than Gitlab imo.
I could rant a lot about the GitHub UX, so here’s just the fairly obvious stuff on the repository page:
Red arrows mean duplicated information or duplicated navigational elements.
Green arrow means why the fuck do I have to tell our customers to click a random link in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, in order to download our software?Unpopular opinion, but most of that is duplicated information that makes sense to be duplicated because I’m not a machine that can scan the whole page and instantly get what I need.
Top right are action buttons, fork and stars on the center right let you see who else starred and forked the repo.
License information just makes sense to be in a repo summary, and it just happens that most license files are at the root and visible in the file tree.
I don’t see the top level stuff, you probably see that because you’re not authenticated, so github tries to “sell” itself for you.
I agree “releases” should be at the top though (it used to, and I use GitHub refined to bring it back), but having the latest one at a glance is nice and saved me a click many times.
I mean, yeah, it can make sense to duplicate information. That screenshot isn’t supposed to say that all of these should be deduplicated.
But you really gotta be cautious with duplication, because it makes everything else harder to find. And I would absolutely argue that GitHub has crossed the line where they duplicate too much, across the board. It feels like design-by-committee.This is entirely anecdotal, but what really dumbfounded me while annotating that screenshot, is that I never actually read the links in that “About” section.
I’ve seen this page probably a thousand times already, but I had no idea that there’s an “Activity” link there, which actually seems like it could be useful. Nor a link to the README, to the CONTRIBUTING.md or for “Custom Properties” (whatever that is).
I had no idea how to report a repo until now, even though the link is apparently always on screen.There’s just so much info there, and it’s presented like read-only info, not like navigation links, so I always just skipped over the lines that don’t have numbers in them. I also genuinely never tried clicking any of these lines before…
Note that the top “ribbon “ is visible from all of those ribbon choices, while the content pane stuff, like the “About” box are only visible in “Code”
Yeah? You should still make a decision. If you want it possible to watch, star and fork the repo from any of the sub-pages, then that stuff has to live in that top ribbon.
But then you shouldn’t duplicate it into the Code sub-page. I’d work with split buttons, where you can look at who starred and you can add your own star, all from the same UI element. It would not even take up more space, since they do already display the count in the top ribbon as well.
Apparently this is how Codeberg does it (see e.g. this repo), so this might be where I have the idea from…
We need decentralized forge such as radicle.dev to become more mainstream and people seeding tons of repo!
