(untitled)

Why isn't sourcehut more popular? Even most hardcore freesoftware elitists I know are still using github.(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST, You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.)

There's also gitgud and some lainons even rolled their own. But I'll add that to my list, thanks!

why sourcehut and not sourceforge, gitea, codeberg, self-hosted gitea/gitlab or a gazillion other possibilities? Github is like kicking dead whales down the beach, but everyone use it because everyone use it. It also has a crazy name recognition, I know too many people who think that git==github.

Sourcehut and codeberg are run by shizos. I tried to sign up for gitlab a couple weeks ago and was hit with picrel. I needed to give them a credit card to even sign up for a free account. fuarrrk that, I'll just keep using github until I can be bothered to set up my own git hosting.

>>39215 What do you mean by schizos? What's bad about Sourcehut and Codeberg?

>>39215 data farming to make money. Its not shizo, its a scam.

>>39244 What sorts of things have they done?

>>39212 Don't you have to pay to host projects on sr.ht?

you guys know git supports e-mail, right? https://git-send-email.io/ also 1000% OP is pizza hut's admin, he's known to wage slave himself on 4chan

Sourcehut is paid. Self-hostind is infeasible, all your self-"hosting" either dies when you turn off/suspend your PC, or it is not really a self-hosting and still belongs to corps (Digital Ocean, OHV, etc). And noone will reg account on you Juche-like "self-hosting" and provide you with a email and other data just to send you a PR, it is easier to just to throw away your project and use one on GitHub, this way only M$ and its key partners are provided with data.

>>39244 >it's a scam So you're not going to elaborate a second time? >>39631 >only Microsoft etc get the data Implying no one is using data scrapers.

>>39632 What elaboration do you need on " they make money selling data and use security as pretense to grab your data" ? Its the modern standard.

>>39642 What are you basing that off of? Neither their terms of use nor their privacy policy would lead one to assume that. In fact on their page "who are we?" they list alternatives to themselves. If they were selling data they obviously likely wouldnt be helping people leave.

>>39643 >Tos&Privacy Policy That's for lawyering normal people into false sense of safety. You can sell anonymous data that isn't really anonymous legally. Data brokers split the data and sell it as anon while also providing the reverse process recipe. The only safe way is to not give data away.

>>39644 Show me where it says they sell any kind of data let alone collect anything more than basic information to begin with.

>>39651 >>39215 are you even trying?

>>39212 I think it really lacks another, alternative instance of sourcehut. I like the software and I think it's vastly superior to anything along the lines of Gogs, Gitea or Gitlab, but it being hosted by and maintained by Drew Devault probably turns off a lot of people, who under other circumstances, would be using it. What I'm referring to is the simple interface without much JS or CSS, it being completely free software, it having a good mailing list feature integration, it even accepting PGP keys for mailing users and more. Hopefully somebody forks it and makes an independent version from Devault.

Drew DePoleVault's site has an amusing suspension mechanism where it'll bar the user from accessing their account settings, even to close the account or to remove their credit card. Subsequently it'll happily go on to charge that credit card again. Read the source, it's right there. So, for SourceHut at least, it's a financial scam, and plausibly a vehicle for DeVault's personal authority. With regard to the latter point, I wouldn't touch that site with another guy's reproductive sausage given how cray-cray Drew is; consider the "hundreds of accusations of sexual misconduct" attack on rms he hosted as recently as 2024. As for Codeberg, its administration doesn't go out of their way to advertise it to randos. To me this legitimizes codeberg as a "github that once was", i.e. a site you'd find out about thru word of mouth from your well-informed peers. I vaguely recall it having some kind of long-term funding as well, which would seemingly give it staying power past its administrators' need to pay rent, and some sort of immunity against all the American fuarrrkery we've seen over the past dozen years or so.

main issue with codeberg is its in yurup scuttlebutt had git-ssb but not sure how well maintained its been >>39631 >all your self-"hosting" either dies when you turn off/suspend your PC why u hosting on your pc? dedicate a box, also dynamic dns

>>39212 it's the networking effect. You need a platform that has the lowest bar to entry for potential contributor. The more hoops someone has to go through - the more gatekeeped they will feel and be less likely to contribute. Everyone already uses github so it creates a low bar for entry.

>>39212 https://dmpwn.info/ That's why.

>>39257 >>39631 >>40838 literally isnt paid (it will be once its out of beta) But that doesnt change anuthing about the fact that github is popular because github is popular, it isnt that difficult to make a github clone, it is just a nice UI on top of git. Github will stay popular because it is what ederyone already uses, when someone asks you about your personal projects they ask for your github.