Follow

Eevee being on-point as always: twitter.com/eevee/status/14100

TL;DR — GitHub trained their new coding AI on Open Source projects, making everything it writes a derivative work, but somehow they've decided that AI is a magical black-box and you probably can't afford to sue to enforce your rights anyways.

Maybe a cooperatively run code hosting service is what I should be doing. Anyone interested?

@sam there is codeberg.org and git.coop already in that direction, if that's what you were thinking about, space for more though I'm sure!

@nicksellen Codeberg I wanted to use, but no CI is a complete dealbreaker (I know they're working on it, but it's been a long time and I'll believe it when I see it). git.coop uses GitLab which is possibly the worst software I've ever used, but I do appreciate that they run it cooperatively. I'm just picky I guess.

@sam @nicksellen just curious, what is so bad about gitlab? I've used it and not run for the hills. Maybe my standards are too low?

@edsu @nicksellen I can't think of anything specific now that it's not right in front of me of course, but every second of using it was just terrible (I used it for a few projects several times and I kept thinking it couldn't be as bad as I remmbered, but it always was). Everything was slow, the UI was a massive maze of complicated options, it did everything under the sun and none of it well, configuring it was a nightmare, CI was too complicated all the tools were hard to use, etc.

@edsu @nicksellen actually, that's not true, Confluence is the worst software I've ever used but GitLab's product manager appears to share the same design philosophy.

@sam @nicksellen huh, I haven't used it a ton, but I have used it for a few projects and not felt like that at all. I was going to say, if GitLab is as worst as it gets for you, you haven't lived enough.

@sam
Several successful floss projects use Gitlab, and they seem ok with it.
Sometimes I think switching to something else is so difficult not because the other thing is shit, but because through the usage of the old we got conditioned that things need to be like this and that. I don't know, maybe that's nonsense in your case.

What I dislike about Gitlab compared to Gitea: web client uses tons of java script, while Gitea runs without. But it still works reliable in production.
@edsu @nicksellen

@sam @edsu @nicksellen
and while they are both not perfect, I think it's also important to compare it with the alternative, that is Microsoft.

So if one doesn't like to contribute to Microsoft politics, there aren't many options to choose.

Personally I go with what exists, rather then hoping for the perfect solution to arise.

@paulfree14 @edsu @nicksellen To the second point: if it were a choice between "good" and "perfect" I'd agree, don't use Microsoft nonsense. Unfortunately it's not. CI is a requirement, and GitLab is unbearably terrible and will negatively impact the development of my software IMO.

@sam @paulfree14 @nicksellen I haven't really used GitLab CI to do anything fancier than run a pytest test suite, which seemed perfectly ok. Are there gotchas with doing more than that on GitLab?

@edsu @paulfree14 @nicksellen I'm more concerned with GitLab itself. It's big and slow, tons of JavaScript, configuring it is a *nightmare* (massive numbers of options to do everything under the sun buried multiple levels deep in confusing menus), etc. I can barely figure out how to use it half the time. Also they have so many different products tacked on, it makes it really hard to use or figure out a good flow. It has been a while, so I don't remember specifics unfortunately.

@sam @paulfree14 @nicksellen yeah, it is complicated ... no argument there. But it's doing some complicated things so, I guess I've been ok with that.

@edsu @paulfree14 @nicksellen I dunno, Gitea and GitHub and Sourcehut and Gerrit are also doing the same things, but they don't seem to have this same problem. I mean, they have their flaws, I just don't dread using them the way I do GitLab. Maybe I'm ultra sensitive to things that don't just do one thing and do it well though.

@sam

Whatever the flaws* in any of these, Github is not doing "one thing"

(*The chief flaw in most is not having had first VC, and now oligopolist, funding to smooth the lotus-eating)

@edsu @paulfree14 @nicksellen

@deejoe @edsu @paulfree14 @nicksellen Sure, but it's not doing everything under the sun the way GitLab is (though it's getting there; I'm somewhat annoyed by most of their newer features, but even so it's not as impossible to configure and use as GitLab). I'm not arguing for staying with GitHub though, just that I want something that's not GitLab.

@sam

I guess this isn't going to be a very satisfying discussion without at least some specifics. On my end, I'll say, Github does a *lot*: I could rattle off a laundry list just off the top of my head, not that I think that would help if you can't see the water you swim in. It's a figure-to-ground problem: You can't see it if you can't see it & there's only so much that can come from insisting there's a vase or two faces.

@edsu @paulfree14 @nicksellen

@deejoe @edsu @paulfree14 @nicksellen I'm not disagreeing with you, GitHub also does a lot. The UX is better though. Again though, I'm not arguing for staying with GitHub, just that I'm leaving it for political reasons, not UX reasons and that I'm interested in something that's not GitLab for UX reasons.

@sam

I'm loathe to feed the misconception that Github invented interactive git web hosting (versus publish only things like cgit) and that everything else is a copy. It & Gitorious were nearly simultaneously introduced. But Gitlab now is in the position of trying for feature parity with a smaller user base and way fewer resources for gently salting away all the controls smoothly across the whole experience.

@edsu @paulfree14 @nicksellen

@deejoe @edsu @paulfree14 @nicksellen That's exactly the problem with GitLab though, trying to feature parity (although I'd argue they've gone way beyond that too) w/o money is a losing proposition and they have a terrible UX because of it. The SourceHut route (make a new thing) or the Gitea route (copy exactly, but only the core important stuff) is far better for designing good software IMO.

@sam

Yeah, I'm not really trying to promote Gitlab to you so much as highlight the co-dependency of the model that plagues them both.

FOSS suffers a severe funding problem, one 'solution' that seems to work, at least for a while, is to offer something for the enterprise that competitors can't or won't.

@edsu @paulfree14 @nicksellen

@sam

With Gitlab this differentiator is mostly self-hosting. There's also that fig-leaf's amount of "competition" to the oligopolist that maybe can be used to bludgeon resellers, to preserve the illusion of negotiating price and service levels.

@edsu @paulfree14 @nicksellen

@deejoe @edsu @paulfree14 @nicksellen Sure, I understand all that, I just don't think it's relevant to me not wanting to use GitLab because it's bad software.

@sam

You feel what you feel. That's valid. I'm not arguing against that. I'd be shocked if you ever settled for Gitlab at this point, if that were my goal here I'd be failing miserably.

That said, maybe you could acknowledge this is more about you coming from a certain set of expectations developed through your use of Github, then projected onto Gitlab, & less something essential to Gitlab alone.

tl;dr: Something doesn't have to be bad for you not to like it.

@edsu @paulfree14 @nicksellen

Show newer

@paulfree14 @edsu @nicksellen I have no problem switching to something new; Gerrit and Sourcehut for example are great. I dislike GitLab in particular.

@sam is that just running gogs on your server or are you thinking something more integrated?

@BreetzTootz Yah, I was just thinking of running GItea and some CI system, but honestly I don't love Gitea either. Ideally I want Gerrit for code review but w/o the annoying magic branches and tracking through a second commit ID, optional git-am/git-send-email support, and a PR like flow that doesn't require that every single person have a separate clone of the repo that will be used once then thrown away. But probably start with Gitea or something existing.

@sam maybe you can work with codeberg to add the missing CI? looks like they have some chat about it here codeberg.org/Codeberg/Communit

(and says they already support self-hosted CI)

@sam there's also the decentralized approach with radicle.xyz

Sign in to participate in the conversation
social.coop

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!