I see the "just create an account" and "just login" crowd have joined the discussion. Some people will defend a monopolist no matter what. If github introduced ID checks à la Google or required a Microsoft account to login, they'd just shrug and go "create a Microsoft account then, stop bitching". They don't realise they are being boiled and don't care. Consoomer behaviour.
I have a question: why do lemmy dev keep using microsoft github?
Open source repositories should rely on p2p. Torrenting repos is the way I think.
Not only for this. At any point m$ could take down your repo if they or their investors don't like it.
I wonder if it would already exist and if it could work with git?
Git is p2p and distributed from day 1. Github is just a convenient website. If Microsoft takes down your repo, just upload to another system. Nothing but convenience will be lost.
The project's official repo should probably exist in a single location so that there is an authoritative version. At that point p2p is only necessary if traffic for the source code is getting too expensive for the project.
Personally I think the source hut model is closest to the ideal set up for OSS projects. Though I use Codeberg for my personal stuff because I'm cheap and lazy
I'm wary of external dependencies. They are cool now, but will they be cool in the future? Will they even exist?
One thing I think p2p excels is resiliance. People be still using eDonkey even if it's abandoned.
A repo signature should deal with "fake copies". It's true we have the problem that BitTorrent protocol is not though for updating files, so a different protocol would be needed. I don't even know how possible/practical it is. It's true that any big project should probably host their own remote repo, and copy it on other platforms as needed. Github only repos was always a dangerous practice.
If you're able to easily migrate issues etc to a new instance, then you don't need to worry about a particular service providers getting shitty. At which point your main concern is temporary outages.
Perhaps this is more of a concern for some projects (e.g. anything that angers Nintendo's lawyers). But for most, I imagine that the added complexity of distributed p2p hosting would outweigh the upsides.
Not saying it's a bad idea, in fact I like it a lot, but I can see why it's not a high priority for most OSS devs
I've been reading about it. But at some point I found that the parent organization run a crypto scam. Supposedly is not embedded into the protocol but they also said that the token is used to give rewards withing the protocol. That just made me wary of them.
Though the protocol did seen interesting. It's MIT licensed I think so I suppose it could just be forked into something crypto free.
There's nothing crypto in the radicle protocol. What I think you're referring to are "drips" which uses crypto to fund opensource development (I know how terrible). It's its own protocol built on top of ethereum and is not built into the radicle protocol.
This comes up every time someone mentions radicle and I think it happens because there's a RAD crypto token and a radicle protocol. Beyond the similar names, it's like mistaking bees for wasps because they look similar and not bothering to have a closer look.
Drips are funding the development of gitoxide, BTW, which is a Rust reimplementation of git. I wouldn't start getting suspicious of gitoxide sneaking in a crypto protocol just because it's funded by crypto. If we attacked everything funded by the things we consider evil, well everything opensource made by GAFAM would have to go: modern video streaming (HLS by Apple), Android (bought by Google), LSPs (popularised and developed by Microsoft), OBS (sponsored by Google through YouTube and by Amazon through Twitch), and much much more.
The thing is that the purpose of such a system is to run away from enshitificacion.
If they are so crypto adjacent is like a enshitificacion speedrun.
If I'm going to stay in a platform that just care for the money I might as well stay in corpo platforms. I'm not going to the trouble of changing platform and using new systems to keep getting being used so others can enrich.
Git itself doesn't have crypto around it. This shouldn't have either.
And this is not even against crypto as a concept, which is fine by me. It's against using crypto as a scam to get a quick buck out of people who doesn't know better.
Torrenting doesn't deal well with updating files.
And you have another problem: how do you handle bad actors spamming the download ?
That's probably why github does that.
That's true. I didn't think of that.
IPFS supposedly works fine with updating shares. But I don't want to get closer to that project as they had fallen into cryptoscam territory.
I'm currently reading about "radicle" let's see what the propose.
I don't get the bad actors spamming the download. Like downloading too much? Torrent leechers?
EDIT: Just finished by search sbout radicle. They of course have relations with a cryptomscam. Obviously..... ;_; why this keep happening?
Its always blocked me from searching in firefox when I'm logged out for some reason.
Wow so surprising, never saw this coming, this is my surprised face. :-l
That' just how the cookie crumbles.
If Microsoft knows how to do one thing well, it’s killing a successful product.
I came here looking for this comment. They bought the service to destroy it. It's kind of their thing.
Probably getting hammered by ai scrapers
The funny thing is that rate limits won't help them with genai scrapers
you mean, doin' what microsoft and their ai 'partners' do to others?
Yeah but they're allowed to do it because they have brazillions of dollars.
Everything seems to be. There was a period where you could kinda have a sane experience browsing over a VPN or otherwise using a cloud service IP range endpoint but especially the past 6 months or so things have gotten worse exponentially by the week. Everything is moving behind cloudflare or other systems
Crazy how many people think this is okay, yet left Reddit cause of their API shenanigans. GitHub is already halfway to requiring signing in to view anything like Twitter (X).
They make you sign in to use search, on code anyways.
Which i hate so much anytime i want to quickly look for something
!codeberg@programming.dev
Codeberg has used way stricter rate limiting since pretty much forever. Nice thought, but Codeberg will not solve this problem, like at all.
What? I have never seen a rate limiting screen on codeberg. Ever. If I click too much on github I get rate limited. It happens so frequently, I use https://sourcegraph.com/search when I have to navigate a repository's code.
60 req/hour for unauthenticated users
That's low enough that it may cause problems for a lot of infrastructure. Like, I'm pretty sure that the MELPA emacs package repository builds out of git, and a lot of that is on github.
I didn't think of that - also for nvim you typically pull plugins from git repositories
That’s low enough that it may cause problems for a lot of infrastructure.
Likely the point. If you need more, get an API key.
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
