There was an article about moving to Codeberg on the orange website yesterday, and out of interest to get an impression of what average programmers think of the idea of moving, I took at look at the comments. (Yeah, I know …)

I’m going to write here my thoughts on a general impression of the comment thread as a whole. (Rather than respond to individuals.)

(This thread reflects only my own views and not those of the remainder of the Codeberg presidium, board – nor (most importantly) does it reflect the views of the members of Codeberg as a whole, who ultimately make the decisions.)

To begin by addressing what seemed to be a misconception underlying a lot of the comments:

Codeberg, the website, does not aim to replace GitHub. We poke fun at their recent foibles in our PR sometimes, but we do not want to become them.

We do not want to replace one single point of failure with another! (Admittedly, I think Codeberg.org, run by a non-profit, as SPOF would be better than GitHub.com, run by Microsoft, as an SPOF, but that’s not the goal!)

We are much more excited by the idea of creating an ecosystem of forges (and different forge software) than in becoming the new one place where absolutely everything is hosted.

I am, for example, very pleased that even while switching to Forgejo, Fedora decided to keep on self-hosting rather than jumping to us.

To be clear, we’re open for everyone who needs us, especially individuals working on their own smaller projects. But other forges are our friends, not our competition

Forge federation is something we’re actively pushing for because of this. Full federation support is still a few years ahead of us, probably, but you can already set up your own forge in a way that minimizes inconvenience to users by using Codeberg as a single sign-on provider for a self-hosted forge.

https://git.madhouse-project.org/, which hosts the Iocaine project, is a great example of this. If you set up Codeberg as SSO for your own site, almost all of our content rules are irrelevant to you.

(If someone’s forge were hosting completely objectionable, hateful content we might choose to turn their OAuth support off. But, for example, you can have as many private and non-free repositories as you like that way. More on that in a bit though …)

(Furthermore, this thread reflects only my own views and not those of the remainder of the Codeberg presidium, board – nor (most importantly) does it reflect the views of the members of Codeberg as a whole, who ultimately make the decisions.)

Apart from that, many people listed things that GitHub provides for free which Codeberg doesn’t provide or requires self-hosting for. The biggest one was CI, but there were other things too.

And I think the only way I can respond to that is by talking about the fundamentally different organizational models that GitHub and Codeberg have – not to plead on our smaller size, but to plead on principles.

Microsoft is a for-profit company. They have attracted a lot of projects to them by giving away free goodies, like an immense amount of computing power for CI, and over the years have increased the amount of stuff you get for free. (Not long ago you had to pay for personal private repos …)

By continuously sweetening the deal for smaller users, then getting orgs to pay once they start needing collaboration features, GitHub built up over a billion dollars in revenue per year (as of 2022).

@dpk Technically Microsoft indirectly paid my salary over 2005. But I can speak to their general bluewashing practices. There has been a shift in strategy under Nadella from Ballmer to seeking influence, direct control in some cases, of open source software, instead of embrace-extend-extinguish (or in preparation for it). Nowhere is this more clear than in how they abuse OpenSSH in Windows 11, or how Quagga is keeping Azure's lights on under a new name.