Galactose@sopuli.xyz to Opensource · edit-24 months agoLet's Make Sure Github Doesn't Become the only Optionblog.edwardloveall.comexternal-linkmessage-square10linkfedilinkarrow-up174arrow-down16file-textcross-posted to: programming[email protected]
arrow-up168arrow-down1external-linkLet's Make Sure Github Doesn't Become the only Optionblog.edwardloveall.comGalactose@sopuli.xyz to Opensource · edit-24 months agomessage-square10linkfedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: programming[email protected]
I was curious about your opinions (Not my article). Also this mentions Fossil & Pijul. Which are fully-fledged Git-Alternatives (Not just github)
minus-squareKissakilinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·edit-24 months ago Alternative for github: codeberg.org only for public FOSS
minus-squareraspberriesareyummy@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·4 months agoPartially true, yes, that is a downside: codeberg currently does not allow non-free licenses. But no, a repository does not have to be public.
minus-squareKissakilinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 months agoIt is not a bad thing. The comment claimed “alternative to GitHub”. I pointed out that it’s an alternative for only a subset of use cases/projects. Without that clarification, someone may explore or follow through and be disappointed.
only for
publicFOSSPartially true, yes, that is a downside: codeberg currently does not allow non-free licenses. But no, a repository does not have to be public.
Why is that a bad thing ?
It is not a bad thing.
The comment claimed “alternative to GitHub”. I pointed out that it’s an alternative for only a subset of use cases/projects. Without that clarification, someone may explore or follow through and be disappointed.