7 ms·
It ridiculous, Codeberg did the same. I get why, really, I do, but it's creating a severe damage that will be abused by a third evil actor that will take over t
by oscarcp 19d ago
It ridiculous, Codeberg did the same. I get why, really, I do, but it's creating a severe damage that will be abused by a third evil actor that will take over the wasteland of GitHub and GitLab by creating a service that will allow anything (until it is enshittified of course)
Outcome? Everyone on their own self-hosted git servers, zero collaboration.
- dmix 19d ago> Outcome? Everyone on their own self-hosted git servers, zero collaboration. Everyone sticking to Github, then a year or two from now Github resolves their scaling issues and the competitors miss their window of opportunity to disrupt
- oscarcp 19d agoNot if they keep putting everything behind a paywall. I'm not going to pay 60 (20/user/month) euros per month to be able to restrict pushes to main. It's absurd. Sorry, this specifically gets my blood boiling so I might be a bit more aggressive than needed.
- megagpt2 18d agoWhat kind of collaboration were you getting on your random GitHub uploads? I didn't get any. This collaboration thing seems like an excuse if people have a way to contact you. Codeberg only banned projects that are majority LLM-coded. They did not ban all use of LLMs.
- oscarcp 17d agoIt seems my eyes skipped the part of "[...]mostly consist of code written by generative AIs[...]" my bad. Which means I have to apologize twice, because of the other comment. Damn, good slap in the face xD