kurante

Is the broken English an optimization or a byproduct of the model being developed in China?

Fair enough! But surely you would allow them to update their summary on what their ideologies are, right? People change, after all. And people should know when those ideologies change too.

We should also make sure people read all the blurbs before they join a website. Maybe we should call it the Terms of Service? ;)

Despite most websites having nothing but legalese in there, Codeberg's is pretty short and human readable by comparison. I know most people have been desensitized to it, but I haven't heard of any better way of coveying them at an institutional level.

> Sure, but Codeberg has presented itself as a hoster for Free Software projects, not for Free Software projects that align with some vaguely defined ideology. If they are now the latter, they should start by clearly stating that ideology so users can make an informed decision on whether Codeberg is the right place for them.

Well, they kinda do? Go on the main page, it's the second line of text: "Codeberg is a non-profit, community-led effort that provides services to free and open-source projects...". They're community-led, and this was a community decision.

> If they are now the latter, they should start by clearly stating that ideology so users can make an informed decision on whether Codeberg is the right place for them

What do you want to see then? They've made a blog post about vibecoded with detailed explanations [1], a public banner mentioning they no longer allow cryptocurrency projects and restricting LLM content and with a link to the changelog with the differences in terms of use [2].

Should hackernews also mention that allowed content is dependent on its moderators with vaguely defined ideologies?

[1]: https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-... [2]: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/compare/17bdb39b0c1ecd0e42...

Did they, though? Do we have numbers on how many cryptocurrency projects were removed from Codeberg because of this, since GitHub is the default choice? Or are you suggesting that there is going to be a significant split because of this?

I agree that this is probably going to cause some fragmentation, but I'm not convinced that it will do so in a meaningful matter or at the scale at which it is problematic to the free and open source ecosystem.

For what it's worth, Forgejo is working on federation[1], which might address your networking effect concerns?

[1]: https://forgejo.org/2026-05-monthly-report/#federation

I strongly disagree: I think this is a perfectly acceptable action. No project is entitled to host their project there, nor is any project compelled to do so, so I don't see why there is any harm in having this instance of Forgejo moderate itself as it sees fit. They have no moral requirement to support all kinds of software.

If you disagree with their beliefs, you are free to host your own instance or find a code forge that better aligns with your beliefs. That is the beauty of free software!

> Headscale is ... drop in replacement

I've been really happy with headscale, but I wouldn't call it a complete drop in replacement as I would with vaultwarden. Some features (e.g. Mullvad integration, ACL tests, etc) are missing.

Upgrading also requires upgrading every minor version or you run into db migration issues, but that comes with the territory of running your own instance.

I would recommend folks look up if headscale suits their needs (like it did for me for many years) before switching over.

Have you seen GhostCell[1]? Seems like this could be a solution to your problem.

[1]: https://plv.mpi-sws.org/rustbelt/ghostcell/

This isn't a problem. The article says that this is only if you're looking to trade-off performance for less noise:

> In other words, we would only recommend upgrading to the NF-A12x25 G2 if you seek to lower noise levels as much as possible and if you are willing to sacrifice the maximum performance headroom in worst-case scenarios that the G1 HS-PWM fan provides.

This is a bad faith comment in so many layers:

- The provided reason given was due to user accessibility concerns complicated by what likely is a breaking change.

- Even if you don't agree with the claim, a reserved name isn't unreasonable at all. Not to make a standard of GitHub, but the `admin` username is reserved there too.

- Dismissing an entire product based on a single non-critical technical limitation while simultaneously not contributing to the solution (unless you have a different username there, happy to be corrected) is fundamentally toxic.

- All the while conflating two separate products (Anubis and Forgejo) that aren't related at all.

- And that Anubis offers a non-anime girl solution, and is MIT Licensed if you really don't care for supporting the author.

I'm not going to prod at the "and everything else" part either.

As long as they don't use `#[tokio::main]` or any other attribute that wraps main into an async function!

There is more to North America than the United States.

What do folks think about authentik[0]?

I tried to set up Keycloak but after fiddling with it for awhile before giving up and trying something else. It felt really weird that I was just extracting a tar and running a jar instead of some pre-packaged solution, but that might just be me.

authentik was pretty easy to set up for my homelab, but maybe I'm missing something given all the positive recommendations for Keycloak?

[0]: https://goauthentik.io/

I'm aware of the reference, but I'd rather try and inform on the off-hand chance that they're serious about the question. I figured that there's little harm in making sure, other than looking a little silly :)

Weissman scores are effectively fictitious and meaningless for any real application. Why are you looking for one instead of benchmarking data?

Python has never followed semver. It's saner to treat minor releases as semver-major, and patches as semver-minor.