A call for action is all the more effective if that action is easy. The Software Freedom Conservancy's call has a lot of background but if the proposed action is "host it yourself" or "pay money for SourceHut", I worry that we will not move forward.
A call for action is all the more effective if that action is easy. The Software Freedom Conservancy's call has a lot of background but if the proposed action is "host it yourself" or "pay money for SourceHut", I worry that we will not move forward.
If you feel differently, perhaps Codeberg is for you instead? SFC recommends them as well and I am just as happy to see projects move there as I am to see them on SourceHut -- we're a paying (but non-voting) member of Codeberg ourselves. Diversity is healthy for the ecosystem, but the proprietary platforms ought to be expelled.
https://codeberg.org/ddevault/pages
We started paying as soon as we started relying on them for this purpose. We pay one euro short of the minimum contribution for voting rights, to support them while respecting their independence. Codeberg is doing wonderful work that we (and the community at large) are depending on and we're prepared to support that without hesitation. Diversity is good for FOSS.
how are they different, or better, than any other floss instance (disroot, framagit, gitgud, savannah, NotABug, pagure, etc)?
I totally agree with you! This is why I think we will not be moving forward, with things as they are.
On the contrary, it means only people that really want to be on Sourcehut will do so.
Which is probably for the best, certainly while it’s still in an alpha state.
Slow and steady wins the race.
Only having a few committed users join SourceHut is great for SourceHut. Having only a few committed users leave GitHub is not great for GiveUpGitHub.