Sure, I know a lot of projects have been on GH since before MS bought it, but they’ve owned it for quite a while now, so we really should be seeing better migration out by now, no?
Codeberg is nonprofit which seems more in the spirit of the Linux ecosystem overall. GH is for-profit…
The case of free CI/CD, visibility, and network effects are already said. So I wanna offer an anectode: someone I know is a graphic designer, who maintains a project that curate icons. Moving to Codeberg means he has to interact with PRs using the CLI, which he really does not have familiarity with. GitHub OTOH has a simple desktop client that allows natively switching across PRs, approving then in the UI, etc. It’s really, really convenient for someone who’s not a developer.
I think Forgejo-based platforms will need to work on a very good GUI client, in order to attract less technical contributors.
Why doesn’t the web client fit their needs?
Been on this post before but just noticed you mentioned “Linux project” as if everything open source (or even source available) is Linux. Quite the ignorance…
For some people, they don’t actually care about the politics of FOSS; they want a portfolio for employers.
It’s disappointing yet unsurprising to read the recurring answers, namely :
- cost
- incumbency
precisely because it’s absolutely avoidable and a well known strategy. It’s so well known that it’s precisely why Micro$lop bought Github in the first place. People are there and the free tiers is enough to get the long tail.
Meanwhile since that strategy happened people who consider smart enough should know the genuine cost behind this : it’s a TRAP. Plain and simple, you get there and you get STUCK there.
So… yes it takes some sweat and even some money to leave the trap … but if you care about freedom, as most free software or open-source developers might, then it’s aligned with your value.
Why aren’t all the reddit users over here yet? Consolidation and ease of use. Big number make brain happy.
Lazyness? Its why Amazon is such a success. Too difficult to do online search. Amazon is convinient.
It’s generally not the search, it’s the payment and shipping
Doubt it, most other online stores with the same coverage do offer similar conditions.
The difference is the wide range of products available on Amazon. I can buy 5 products from widely different areas and only pay shipping once (or maybe twice depending on availability).
If I were to order these 5 products on 5 different stores I’d pay 5 times shipping.
Your local or regional provider can and will send you books in the same time - perhaps not in 24h, but this may be rarely the case that somebody is in a such dearly need of a book.
I am buying books from my local provider, though more expensive, but I want people to have jobs - considering how many bookstores closed due to Amazon - and the possibility to go there, have a book in my hand and read it a bit.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen Amazon talked about as a book store.
You are mistaken, they all are, what’s left is bots talking between them
Free CI/CD
A friend of mine sees using GitHub as microslop paying reparations to open source.
Right, like how Micro$lop :
- blocked repository search without login (while it worked before the acquisition)
- pushed in the most traditional Micro$lop fashion for its own product, e.g. Copilot, with in product ads
- use repositories as ways to feed its own set of products, e.g. Azure for OpenAI, in order to push for code generation while ignoring licenses
and all the other things (please feel free to make this list more comprehensive) as “reparations”?
It’s the same old "Embrace, extend, and extinguish " (EEE) scheme they’ve been (sadly successfully) running for decades now.
Codeberg doesn’t offer CI runners* for macOS for free.
It’s important if you have cross platform apps
Runners? If MS is providing free dinners I might have to rethink my thoughts on github.
deleted by creator
I didn’t know GH did that… Cool!
Did you download the source code? It’s on GitHub. It’s literally on GitLab. It’s on Bitbucket with ads. It’s literally on SourceForge. You can probably find it on Savannah. Dude it’s on Azure DevOps. It’s a Codeberg project. It’s on Gitea. You can download it on Gitea. You can go to Gitea and download it. Log into Gitea right now. Go to Gitea. Dive into Gitea. You can Gitea it. It’s on Gitea. Gitea has it for you. Gitea has it for you.
That’s kind of the point of git
Is that pron. “gih-tee” or “gih-tee-uh?”
I joined Github and others, years ago to report bugs in software. But now I rage quit Github. No more bugs from me unless you move your application to a more acceptable platform. I suggest every bug reporter user do likewise. Screw Microsoft.
Momentum and time and effort to migrate.
And there’s automated workflows such as GitHub Actions and ci/cd integrations that don’t have 1-to-1 replacements, which would mean extra work (for quite strained teams of volunteers)
Additionally, as a developer on a large open source project, the community is already established on GitHub. It would be incredibly risky to move it and hope everyone comes along.
Gentoo moved: https://www.gentoo.org/news/2026/02/16/codeberg.html
Good for them, still, it’s risky, they just decided it was worth the risk
I moved my projects and yes I had to make new runners and pipelines for forgejo but it’s pretty much feature parity
Good for you, guess your setup is less complicated then.
There’s still plenty of stuff that is not a 1-to-1 drop in replacement, e.g. plenty use build previews from netlify, they have no drop-in for other providers so to get those you have to directly interact with the API instead, in a runner
Two main reasons: history and network effects.
GitHub was an independent company for a decade that provided a vastly superior service to what it replaced, primarily SourceForge. And it was free for FOSS projects, while charging for closed ones.
The improvements paid for by the closed source customers trickled out to everyone. So, it became the best place for FOSS developers, large and small. And as more people moved to GH, the more reason there was to move to it.
Of course, it was constantly bleeding money and eventually had to do something. That ended up being selling to MS.
There was a lot of trepidation about this, but for the first few years they not only kept their promise about supporting FOSS, but actually made it better by allowing small private repos to get many of the services that were previously gated for open FOSS or paid repos.
And the alternatives were stil not as good, and just as importantly didn’t have the user networking that GH does.
Now, some FOSS people are starting to look elsewhere, Codeberg, self-hosted Forgejo, and others. They have come a long way and are nearing feature parity, particularly for smallish projects. But the network effects of discovery and reputation are strong, and GH still provides a few more useful features.
I’ve moved my private repos to self hosted Forgejo, but my public ones are still on GH as push mirrors. I’m not ready to give up the discoverability and Mac/Windows CI runners that I can get from GH for free. I hope to be able to some day, but not yet.
Just to give some relevant information: Git, the major program behind GitHub, has been developed by Linus Torvals. The license allowed the free use of git until today. Some people took git and built a web application around - GitHub was born. Sure they added some features, but the engine was git! In 2018 these “creators” of GitHub sold their product to Microsoft. They gave a s**t on the community and what may happen afterwards.
There was a lot of trepidation about this, but for the first few years they not only kept their promise about supporting FOSS, but actually made it better by allowing small private repos to get many of the services that were previously gated for open FOSS or paid repos.
- They embraced! :D
- They extended! :D
- . . .aw, shit. :/
I’ve only a basic understanding of using Git myself, but I think I’m gonna learn it with a self-hosted Forgejo for my Godot projects too.
Then for the parts that don’t have feature parity, I won’t know what I’m missing, and I have no need for “iNdUsTrY sTaNdArD LeAdiNg oPtiMiZeD sYnErGyStiC wOrKfLoWs” or whatever hahaha.
It does definitely present a conundrum if you want people to see your open source software though. Damn network effect. =\
The number one thing to remember about git is that you don’t need a full hosting service around it for basic functionality. If it’s just you, a single local repo will probably serve you just fine, maybe use a bare repo on your main machine or a Pi-level device if you like as a remote/backup. Just
git initorgit init --bareand you’re good to go. GitHub, Codeberg, Forgejo, and all the others exist to serve multi-contributor and/or public project-level needs.The number two thing to remember is that it is based around graph theory.
That’s some really helpful advice, thank you! 😃 I actually didn’t know you could just make any local folder a repo like that.
Would a Forgejo instance still be helpful if I wanted to have “one point of truth” between multiple machines even if I’m the only dev? I already use Syncthing, but for some reason I feel like there’d be a lot of sync conflicts and stuff.
The other main reason for wanting to learn Git, of course, is because it’s otherwise more difficult to try out changes to scripts and experiment, without finding yourself lost in the weeds and forgetting what worked last.
My current “version control” is “copy the entire project folder before you do anything major.” 😂
Btw, there are some CI runners on Codeberg, but they’re not well advertised, and not as feature-rich
GitHub has been around for nearly 2 decades and was largely considered a mostly good thing until maybe the past couple of years. Also important to add that Microsoft seems to mostly have left it alone for the first couple of years (possibly with the exception of Atom, which it left very alone)
In addition to people just generally being slow to change, changing can take quite a bit of effort for some projects for varying reasons. Many of those same projects struggle to keep up with the maintenance workload, so they’re not going to jump at the chance to add more work to their plates.
Finally, some people just don’t care. For instance, the MIT license being popular is pretty hard evidence that FOSS doesn’t necessarily mean anti-corporate, and for many users GitHub still more or less does what it says on the tin.
Though I will say if the service disruptions and ad-injection bullshit continue you’ll only see GitHub competitors grow. GitLab seems to be going after their enterprise customers with some success.
Atom is back to life, kinda, there’s a fork of it called Pulsar that’s actually really pretty good
For instance, the MIT license being popular is pretty hard evidence that FOSS doesn’t necessarily mean anti-corporate, and for many users GitHub still more or less does what it says on the tin.
I’m pretty sure that MIT license is that popular out of ignorance, instead of an informed decision to allow corporate to steal and make money out of their code.
I’ve known people IRL who talk about the GPL like it’s a virus infecting your code
I remember this confusion a LOT back when main-branch Blender had its own game engine built in.
Forums were full of people saying crap like :
“Don’t use that, because since you used Blender which is GPL it means you have to provide the source code to your incredible GOTY contender and then everybody will beat you at life!!!”
I’d like to think that is so but some here will argue non-copyleft licenses are “more free”. Ime they don’t reply after I point out that’s the freedom to deny others freedom.
It’s freedom nonetheless.
Widen the scope to consider downsteam users (the dev’s user’s users and beyond) and now the potential lack of any software freedom makes it freedom muchtheless.
So you want to restrict dev’s freedom to choose whichever license they want?
I prevent others from relicensing my works under less-free licenses or making them non-free by using Copyleft/share-a-like licenses.
Respectfully disagree. I can only speculate why other developers choose MIT. But for small and medium-sized projects, a more restrictive license is unlikely to protect them from this scenario anyway. And if that’s true, one could argue it’s better to go down a road where corporate sponsorships are potentially more likely.
Personally, I often choose MIT because I don’t care who uses my code and for what, and I’d prefer that it be easy to borrow from. I used to be concerned about how my code was used, but over the years I’ve developed a strong dislike for copyright as a concept in general so I fight it how I can. Some of my projects are so simple that even MIT seems like overkill. In those cases I use the Unlicense.
Open Source projects get lots of free features for being on GitHub. Nobody else is beating that offering at current.
What are those free features? Why doesn’t Codeberg have it?
- CI runners - GH offers free CI runners for a variety of OSs. I can automatically test my code on Linux/Mac/Windows for free on GH. No one else offers that because it is very expensive. You need windows licenses and Apple hardware. And Codeberg only offers it on Linux after a back and forth discussion. Plus, while simple GH CI Actions move to Forgejo Actions pretty easily, more complex ones require a complete rewrite.
- Better issue tracking - FJ’s issue tracking is pretty good, and perfetcly fine for small projects, but GH’s is better.
- Better CLI -
fjis decent and improving, butghis better - Better project pages - Codeberg Pages is decent and improving, but GH Pages are better.
- Lots of other small things - Codeberg is decent and improving, GH is better.
For most people, myself included, the only thing that really matters are the CI runners. But that is also the one thing that costs the most to support.
Because running servers costs money. The project I work on gets donations towards it’s CI costs and it’s not insignificant.
Free github actions
