There's not really much point in using a self hosted gitea or codeberg or sourcehut if you want the barrier of entry to be as low as possible for potential contributors. Maybe if some larger projects made the move. But GitHub has more features (like discussions), provides better hosting and ease of use. The focus of any open source project should be on development of the software, not the software which supports its development.

[–] coffeeClean@infosec.pub 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There’s not really much point in using a self hosted gitea or codeberg or sourcehut if you want the barrier of entry to be as low as possible for potential contributors.

Of course there is.

But GitHub has more features (like discussions), provides better hosting and ease of use.

Bingo. Prioritizing convenience features above digital rights principles is exactly why Github’s walled garden dominates over forges that have a lower barrier of entry.

The focus of any open source project should be on development of the software, not the software which supports its development.

Again, people to setting aside their principles is exactly what I’m talking about.

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 0 points 9 months ago

It's not so much a case of people setting aside their principles, it's more like people considering stability, potential contributions and convenience alongside their principles.

Give Codeberg a few more years of stability and people might re-evaluate choosing GitHub. The controversy around Gitea forming a company and the fragmentation of development unsettles that trust.