Hilarious how the offender on "exhibit A" [1] is the same one from the other post that made the frontpage a couple of days ago [2].

[1] https://github.com/ziglang/zig/issues/25974

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46039274

Also, the big part of that issue is people are incentivized to make their GitHub profile look good to have a higher chance of getting hired. Any non-mainstream platform is not as compelling to get social credits.

https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/top-story-industry-partner...

There is a purity spiral that organizations can enter when they start doing this, which ends up with you shoving yourself into a cold dark corner of the internet and still not being completely detached from the badness because Cisco provides infrastructure for nearly every major weapons manufacturer and defense department globally.

[1]: https://blog.codeberg.org/letter-from-codeberg-onwards-and-u...

Sad state of affairs

To me this said more than anything else in the post. The fact that there are genuine people at forgejo/codeburg that give a thought about what they are working on is pure gold.

After that they appreciate GitHub Sponsors, but say it is now a complete liability just because a project leader left. What are the actual changes? Any new rule? But no, it is now a "liability" and we should accept it.

Honestly speaking I like how big projects are exploring new hosting options. But there is no need to attack other platforms like this to promote your new host.

More opensource projects should move off GitHub. I moved off it myself.

This says more about the author than anything else.

If you didn't know what Codeberg's political stance really is and how they treat the inconvenient part of their userbase... I guess now you know.

Also recently wrote about our vision and commitment to indies and communities (and never enterprise!): https://anirudh.fi/future

You're running what aims to be a major programming language - have it where people expect and live with your gripes about the platform.

In retail you set up your store in the biggest mall with the most customers walking past - sure you can go set up in some back alley but don't expect customers to come to your store. This remains true even if the mall owns forget to mop the floor.

This feels immature and does not give confidence in the project/language leadership.

I have... questions about Zig leadership

I used to look up to the Zig folks…

Microsoft controlling GitHub is an issue, but one can see this issue emerging in different places too; see shopify puting pressure on the ruby ecosystem, ending with various developers who contributed to ruby (in particular via gems and bundler) no longer being accepted there (via RubyCentral's take-over, under shopify's directive and influence onto ruby). Many more examples can be given here. The thing is that money buys influence, ultimately dictating who can contribute and how. Python forcing mandatory 2FA onto all developers is also an example here - the hobbyist who just contributes code, has not really any benefit here, whereas corporations delegate more "security" onto unpaid folks.

I’m sure ICE spends more than $200k at Dunkin’ Donuts are they in a relationship ?

Aside from the bitter words against Github (and I read comments here forgetting about the very real consequences with people lives like collaboration with ICE), using codeberg is using Forgejo : those technology are by us and for us. Unlike Github we can run our own if necessary and all the technology (actions and such) can be improved and be shared between us.

An other benefit of Forgejo/Codeberg is the absence of pushing for paying more, Github is not free and lives of users going to Azure/Gemini or other Mircrosoft services. There are many parts that are made/changed to nudge people into paying more and more and be vendor-locked.

I like my life to have the fewest dark patterns as possible and Coderberg is extremely helpful.

I wouldn’t move business critical repos there .

Everyone loses their mind when GitHub goes down once every 2 years . If codeberg provided SLas , they would probably breach them weekly

I push to Github and then an Action mirrors the code to Codeberg automatically.

I'd fully switch over except practically everybody is on Github and nobody is on Codeberg, and I've had more outages with Codeberg than Github over the past year.

It really feels like there could be some good tooling in this area to make working through multiple Forge's easier and not force things to be centralized so much. Hopefully more projects moving out of Github makes it easier and gets more people contributing elsewhere.

[1] https://codeberg.org/arcuru/eidetica#repository

edit: I say as a GitHub sponsor of Zig for the past few years. I do see that I'll have to move that, and maybe I will, but I don't love having yet another account with saved credit card info and subscription to manage...

While I like the idea of a more distributed repository environment, I will miss the project discoverability, social aspects, and centralization that GitHub offers. It'll probably be awhile before I make a switch, but I will eventually.

Zig spent years removing dependencies on the system C compiler (zig cc), removing dependencies on libc, and is currently working to remove the dependency on LLVM (the self-hosted backend).

GitHub was just another dependency.

For a project obsessed with reproducibility and toolchain sovereignty, relying on a single proprietary platform (and its changing ToS/AI policies) was a massive architectural liability. They aren't just moving repos; they are eliminating 'Platform Risk' the same way they eliminated 'Linker Risk'.

The message itself could be a bit nicer however. I agree with what it says but not with how it is written.

Man, sometimes I feel like I live on a different planet. I have been using GitHub since 2010 and—while I really wish I had a nicer way of putting this—I cannot remember a time when all of the flagship products were not uniformly either worst-in-class or close to it. Code review/PRs, issues, code search, CI, a real enterprise offering, and now AI features: all of these offerings had gaps serious enough to instigate real, threatening upstarts, and some of those upstarts were themselves big enough to become public companies. Seriously. A viable path to IPO from 2013 to (say) 2019 was literally "make a version of a GitHub feature that simply does not suck."

I loved GitHub in 2010. I also remember those years, 2013 to 2019, being essentially totally lost, with no meaningful product movement at all. Am I truly alone in this? What is this Andrew talking about here?

I'm not going to defend the Microsoft acquisition, but at least—excruciatingly slowly—things like code review and issues are finally starting to receive features. It's crazy to say it out loud but that is what I see.

I just can't help but think the product "enshittification" narrative here is an ex post justification of the author's own feelings.

Have fun with your newfound virtue, Zig folks!

Good move anyway.

Folks, we have to stop this bullshit. NOBODY is perfect. Not you. Not me. Not anyone. It IS entirely possible that some script thing was written by an intern and it doesn't quite work right. That's possible. Does that make them a shitty intern?

As I've told others, and try to tell others, empathy is super important in the tech field. As a fellow autistic person who used to be this way towards other people, I find it equally as jarring now and completely turns me off to listening to whatever that person has to say when they make posts like this.

Give people some grace, make fixes, move on with your life. That's the beauty of OSS development. Submit some patches, reach out to maintainers, open a dialog, have good conversation. Don't just shit all over someone for the sake of doing so even if they are doing something "stupid".

I promise you we will ALL be better for it.

Yes issues have been filed but more could be done back channel.

Personally - I think GitHub is a cultural artifact now. Of the entire planet. Hackers and curious minds from Japan to Alaska and everything in-between flock to GitHub.

No way for those to be moved too or not worth the effort? Unless misremembering, another project that moved forges (to GitLab?) had somehow done it.

It’s like sourceforge all over again. History rhymes with itself, and enshitification has been added to dictionaries for a good reason.

As a once upon a time avid slashdotter, makes me wonder if some day, HN will go the same route.

Another problem with that is that you know what you are leaving, but you don't really know what you find in the new place. GitHub used to go down often in the early days. Now they may not be snappy and unfortunately like 99% of the web felt for this Javascript framework craziness. But the site is always up, I bet has disaster recovery and serious backup policy, and so forth. Can you find this so obviously in other smaller places?

I don't miss anything from the dark days of managing self-hosted CI servers.

Do they actually think the folks who run Github are in charge or making typescript?

Edit: you can register without membership.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45679837

I like Copilot in VSCode, but this is BS.

That just shows what kind of person they are, and makes me never want to use Zig, even hope for its failure.

> Thank you to the Forgejo contributors who helped us with our issues switching to the platform, as well as the Codeberg folks who worked with us on the migration

I'd love to see a writeup about these problems/solutions at some point.

I can't agree with him more that Github went to absolute shit and I can feel React crap emanating from it without even looking at the code. There's everything in the world wrong with React and I would easily call anyone advocating it a code-monkey in their face. It's not about JavaScript itself - it's about the framework ideas, which are absolute trash. If anyone's offended by a code-monkey, I feel like maybe they should be.

> More importantly, Actions is created by monkeys

This writing really does not reflect well on Zig. If you have technical issues with Github, fine: cite them. But leave ad hominems like "losers" and "monkeys" out of it.

If there is one benefit in moving from GitHub it is certainly avoiding receiving AI slop issues on GitHub.

Github was on the decline anyway in the past 5 years, it's time for an alternative and we'll see. Would rather it being Codeberg over something like Sourcehut.

I agree it would have been nicer if the message was more polite. But if you compare that to having the backbone follow through with meaningful long-term changes against a corporation you don't trust or respect, there shouldn't even be a discussion.

And don't even get me started with the people who come in here just to point out that Codeberg isn't perfect either.

This language by Andrew is natural, real and should be valued more than anything else. Thank you, it's a refresher and it reminds me an old internet, where everyone been really free to write what and how they wanted it to be.

Who are you after all to judge how he writes his opinions?

Happy hacking, Andrew!

instead of crying about zig's coc they should work on that abomination of a framework.