The real underlying problem is hardware manufacturing (explained further here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49690354), which exerts centralizing pressure all the way up the stack. We should have pursued computer manufacturing in a print shops and printers kind of way instead of building large fabs, but that would have required foresight decades prior.
for me the lock in is cheap data reliability and low chance of loss. downtime problems blow, but if they lost any of my data for any reason other than a eula/tos violation or some such then i'd run.
(the anduril-type folks using nix for high-assurance setups!)
Maybe it would be better to measure uptime not as what percentage of time the site is up, but instead as how likely a randomly selected visitor is to be able to access the site.
That would adjust for the fact that the window of peak demand, e.g. the US workday, which is when Github tends to go down, is also when people need the service the most.
I usually check this and then doubt my network might be at fault if they don't show outages.
GitHub has outages all the time without that page showing anything.
Another comment pointed to a third party alternative which is more accurate – https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/ – but that alternative isn't showing an outage right now either, since I believe it is being fed by GitHub.com's incident data.
This is indeed correct.
Maybe I spoke too soon in labelling your page “more accurate”?
503 Service Unavailable
No server is available to handle this request.Our CI is broken at the moment, unable to download tools used in various checks (gitleaks, etc).
Our public mirrors for open source stuff that results in built binaries that we ship is built on GitHub Actions from the public GitHub mirror so we have build attestation from the source.
Sometimes you're just dependent on things.
might as well say Google is a free Git alternative because you're free to use another one since you can't use it for git
I've found 2 serious vulnerabilities in Librewolf (can crash computer from HTML page, from an iframe) as an example this week, as per their rule, agent isn't allowed to report it, guess we will just have to leave those critical around or wait around that a human discover them while attackers already exploit them in the wild :/
Codeberg doesn't want the world to be secure, quite shady, unless they care to explain what's the downside of discovering critical vulnerabilities with AI, especially automatically? Thinking that humans will write more secure programs than machines is just wrong and shows an outdated and dangerous mindset.
Humans+AI > Humans.
It is a ridiculous misinterpretation to assume it means "somebody else will host anything I upload, free of charge", which is of course not the case - not on GitHub either, by the way, their ToS just happens to be more friendly to slop.
(For understandable reasons, too; while M$ is making a killing from selling LLM access & Free Software as training data, the main "benefit" Codeberg sees is getting DDoSed by LLM scrapers 24/7 and vibecoders using up disproportionate amounts of resources.)
There is no such circle. If you put your work in public, it has been used to train AI. That's it.
I'd rather stay in Github and maybe use another service purely as backup.
You are probably wrong on that.
> You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex). Such projects having an unclear copyright status (see requirements § 2 (1) 1 and § 2 (1) 3) and furthermore have little safeguards to ensure that they do not include harmful code (c.f. § 2 (1) 5).
https://codeberg.org/codeberg/org/src/branch/main/TermsOfUse...
You are probably wrong on that.
If Github truly becomes unreliable and people migrate to this niche service en mass, they'll ignore their no AI coding policy.
Are they going to ban your account based on an algorithm? Are they going to personally check your code? Are they going to scan your code base for AI generated code? How do they define “mostly”?
These seem like insane policies to have a critical business dependent on.
Not only that, their uptimes are still worse than GitHub.
I'd much rather stay with Github than a small provider.
Detect it using an algorithm and automatically ban your business account?
Do people not see how insane that policy is?
Swap those two and you're on the right track. I think the best way to use GH is as a mirror for a self-hosted git instance, with or without web frontend. It gives you the reach of GH with the, dare I say it, reliability of self-hosted. It also gives you the chance to keep things off GH which you don't want to be there. Keep the self-hosted instance private for most things, use GH links for public access. When GH is down again you can always give people (temporary) access to your self-hosted instance if the need arrives.
"This endpoint is seeing a high influx of requests for this repository, to preserve the availability of Codeberg your request will not be processed. Sorry for the inconvenience and please try again later."
This is not a complaint, its a free offering and I appreciate alternatives, but just yesterday I moved one of my open source projects from codeberg to github after waiting 30+ minutes multiple times for CI to start.
(You are not required to agree for such use in tos, but it will be used anyway)
(Not by Codeberg operators, to be clear)
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free~~~
no thanks.
I don't have to be pro or against AI to avoid signing a deal with (another) devil.
p.s. : "my code won't be training AI if im on codeberg" is just straight delusion, regardless of their policies.
and some discipline can go a long way.
Label management is a mess too with almost no ease of use features. Lots of clicking when prior art already exists elsewhere.
Federation is another thing that's supposed to happen but isn't.
Action runners I like actually but their web UI is really confusing.
API is missing a lot of endpoints too. (Pretty straight forward for AI agents to work on as "good first issue")
No machine users or management of the same via Administrator. If you want to have a bot (not necessarily AI) you need to create a user with a hard to guess password and manage it by actually logging in as that user.
Another user will probably have their own set of things that matter to them.
As I've already said above, I do use it and love it but sort of half hoped Gitea would have proceeded farther since Forgejo forked away. It hasn't.
OneDev looks much more capable on surface to me today but I have not used it extensively yet and it has some features not included in the self hosted version. Not as much as open core projects but some.
> The server didn't respond in time.
No such thing as bad PR these days, 24 hours later and we're on to the next thing, that's assuming people even saw it in their doom scroll feed. Gone are the days when everyone watches the same TV news or reads the same newspaper.
Amazon og Google or OpenAI having a one-click port of Githubs daily experience and Githubs CI infrastructure seems like it would be a pretty straightforward proof-of-AI-concept for a critical audience.
Microsoft of today isn't a leader in anything they're not the only ones in.
I think about this every time I'd hit a corrupted Access database, corrupted Exchange store or OneDrive messing up a sync. Was it actually the hardware or just sloppy programming filled with race conditions?
I was going through some old emails in an @hotmail.com account only find some had their headers but completely blank bodies so I guess Microsoft's own servers get impacted by it too.