One of GitHub's most staple contributors announced they are abandoning ship due to constant outages. GitHub's COO responds, promising change, but is it all too little too late?
Yeah, and the worst thing about this is that Github is critical infrastructure. If Github goes down the drain, so many devs and projects will be affected
We already went through this with SourceForge’s enshittification back in the day, to the point that sometimes people called it “SourceForget”. We’ll survive the GitHub-pocalypse too, it will suck, but we’ll be even better on the other side, at least until the next great centralization and enshittification.
The great thing about git is, that it is pretty decentralized in principle (everyone has a full copy of all source code and commits on their machines), so it is pretty easy to move your whole repository to an alternative git hoster, like Codeberg.
I keep hearing about codeberg. Yet, when Claude CLI was leaked — I found the repo on some weird blockchain git repository with a message like “It’s here forever now…”
For OSS and personal projects, wouldn’t a blockchain solution actually be pretty good?
Not really. Blockchain technology has one use case and that is collaboration between partners who don’t trust each other. So we’re talking crypto coins, where not all nodes are really trustworthy and there is an incentive to cheat. But there’s no reason to bring this tech to your Git repository because you really do not want untrustworthy participants in your code. Only you should have access to your Git rep, and then the easier solution is to host it yourself and use a normal database.
Maybe I am using the wrong technology for the right idea here, in my statement. What I’m really trying to get at is, wouldn’t we benefit greatly from having decentralized control over git hosting? Ideally then, The People decide what happens with it as a public resource — not a fickle technology company with competing interests and revolving management.
The solution should be immune to DMCA takedown requests, IMO.
Edit: I’ve never really thought about it… but decentralized hosting could seriously mess with IP laws, couldn’t it? Leaks can be done in a way that they cannot be undone.
Yeah, and the worst thing about this is that Github is critical infrastructure. If Github goes down the drain, so many devs and projects will be affected
Our company has had fits with GitHub the past month. It feels like every day something is busted.
Our company is also drinking the AI kook aid though and can’t see the forest for the trees.
We already went through this with SourceForge’s enshittification back in the day, to the point that sometimes people called it “SourceForget”. We’ll survive the GitHub-pocalypse too, it will suck, but we’ll be even better on the other side, at least until the next great centralization and enshittification.
The great thing about git is, that it is pretty decentralized in principle (everyone has a full copy of all source code and commits on their machines), so it is pretty easy to move your whole repository to an alternative git hoster, like Codeberg.
Except all the extra stuff like CI, issues, pull requests, discussions, pages, and probably some more things.
Forgejo has options to import some of that too, but it’s not that easy. A modern repository isn’t just files in git.
I keep hearing about codeberg. Yet, when Claude CLI was leaked — I found the repo on some weird blockchain git repository with a message like “It’s here forever now…”
For OSS and personal projects, wouldn’t a blockchain solution actually be pretty good?
Edit: found it https://gitlawb.com/node/repos/z6MkgKkb/instructkr-claude-code
Not really. Blockchain technology has one use case and that is collaboration between partners who don’t trust each other. So we’re talking crypto coins, where not all nodes are really trustworthy and there is an incentive to cheat. But there’s no reason to bring this tech to your Git repository because you really do not want untrustworthy participants in your code. Only you should have access to your Git rep, and then the easier solution is to host it yourself and use a normal database.
Maybe I am using the wrong technology for the right idea here, in my statement. What I’m really trying to get at is, wouldn’t we benefit greatly from having decentralized control over git hosting? Ideally then, The People decide what happens with it as a public resource — not a fickle technology company with competing interests and revolving management.
The solution should be immune to DMCA takedown requests, IMO.
Edit: I’ve never really thought about it… but decentralized hosting could seriously mess with IP laws, couldn’t it? Leaks can be done in a way that they cannot be undone.