I've been on Codeberg for over a year now and the experience has been great. It has been around for a while, it's fast, thanks to Forgejo, the self-hostable open-source software that Codeberg uses, which also offers great features.

However, it lacks a good CI/CD system. I feel like Woodpecker (the CI/CD system Codeberg uses) can't do more complex things. Forgejo/Gitea have their own CI/CD system which is better, but Codeberg still uses Woodpecker.

But other than that, why isn't Codeberg more widely adopted? Even privacy advocates continue to use GitHub, despite its acquisition by Microsoft. I agree with the sentiment that GitHub has a large user base, and its widespread adoption is undeniable, but I still think more people should try Codeberg or even self-host their own Forgejo/Gitea instances.

So, I'm curious to hear your perspective. What are the reasons that keep you tied to GitHub? Do the features and network outweigh the privacy concerns? Are there specific functionalities that you rely on and haven't found elsewhere?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] cerement@slrpnk.net 16 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

mind share – GitHub is the Coca-Cola of git, Codeberg and SourceHut are the RC Colas – people are already on GitHub, their projects are already on GitHub, their workflows are already on GitHub, their friends are already on GitHub, their co-workers are already on GitHub, and on and on …

it’s the same issue with Facebook – everyone knows Facebook is shit, but leaving Facebook means convincing your friends and family to leave Facebook, and convincing their friends and family to leave Facebook … outside of a global event like a pandemic, a nigh impossible task …

[–] PlexSheep@infosec.pub 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I disagree somewhat. In general, the network effect is very strong of course, but git is already decentralized. You can pretty much just git push to somewhere else or even use email.

The rest is just (useful) extra stuff.

[–] cerement@slrpnk.net 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

GitHub has managed to conflate “git” and “GitHub” in a lot of people’s minds (including people who should know better) – git may be decentralized, but to people who think git is GitHub, it’s meaningless

[–] PlexSheep@infosec.pub 1 points 3 months ago

That's correct, but it still can be separated without too much effort, unlike if it would just be one thing.

[–] refalo@programming.dev 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Codeberg and Vervis are working on federated git which largely solves this problem IMO.