What do we want? Have everyone move to ?
No, but it should just be okay not to be on or !

We're proud to offer an alternative to those who care, and thankful to everyone who joins us and other free Git hosters. You rock!


Coming soon™ - we're preparing the setups, but it's still a complex topic to start with resource management etc. Feel free to subscribe the issue, so you won't miss any updates!


if you join fdroid, you have to have an account at github and gitlab. but i only need it for issues. everything else is on codeberg.

@codeberg Codeburg should have something like Github Pages, that would be an awesome addition and would attract people to Codeburg for sure.

@codeberg Strength through diversity. (Anything to prevent the github monopoly.)

@codeberg as much as I appreciate what you guys are doing, I feel it's not entirely fair to lump #GitHub and #Gitlab together.

GitHub is a Microsoft-owned corporate walled garden, actively working to monopolize the space.

Gitlab, while huge, has a great, full-featured FLOSS version for self-hosting that is also a first-class citizen as far as their handling of technical issues is concerned. Plus, they are at least talking about a federated protocol:

We don't! A big mission is to spread awareness that is not the gold standard for code development. Still, many platforms require either GitHub or GitLab accounts (e.g. for proof of owning a piece of code // being maintainer of something). We think this is not fair, you should be free to choose your place to develop code!

When calling out for people, we usually mention both and as self-hosted solutions, they are fine and other tools are too.

Still, we see many people complain about the service being behind , taking intransparent decisions, and it's still a commercial product after all.

We won't give a statement if we consider them better than GitHub or not, but we'll be working hard to offer a viable alternative to everyone who wants to avoid both of them for whatever reason.

@rysiek So with "it should just be okay not to be on or !", we're talking mainly about not forcing someone to move to or as a hosted service. It's perfectly fine to prefer GitLab as a tool, but still, no one should be forced to use any platform they dislike.

@codeberg yes, I understand all of this.

But if you're talking about, why not be clear about it and say "", instead of effectively painting any and all Gitlab instances (like the amazing, for example) with the same broad brush?

@rysiek Where did we paint any GitLab instance by saying that it should not be required to use them?

I'll happily paint us with the same brush: No one should be forced to use Codeberg, it's perfectly fine to use anything you like. You can also send your patches via E-Mail or use another VCS.

Diversity matters. Freedom matters. We're aiming at offering freedome, not at creating another trap.
- Otto

@codeberg and that is perfectly fair. But none of the 3 different Gitlab instances I managed at one time or another is behind CloudFlare.

Hence me asking for a clear distinction between Gitlab and

@rysiek We'll try to be more sensible here in the future, but still, using the term "GitLab" can still be considered the correct term for their hosted service and is commonly used - also as Hashtag.
We'll try to be more clear in the future, but still, we don't like being called out for this.
- Otto

@codeberg "correct", sure, but if someone said "No one should be forced to use GitHub or Codeberg" you'd probably feel a bit awkward and a bit bad about it (even though technically it's also correct), for the same reasons why I felt somewhat meh about lumping Github and Gitlab.

Anyway, thanks for engaging and considering. I appreciate it.

And thanks for doing what you do. The more amazing forges, the better!

@rysiek True. I'll try to refer unmistakably to the hosted service in future postings.

@codeberg I agree! But I should be allowed to choose a place to develop code even if I use Gitlab, by self-hosting it.

So, by conflating Gitlab with in the context of this (important!) issue, you're making the conversation more muddy.

If instead that distinction was made, it would potentially be *easier* to convince the other platforms: "guys, you're *already* supporting, why not self-hosted Gitlab instances? and if that, why not other forges?"

@rysiek The GitLab team offers the hosted service under the same name as their product, so by calling their name, we don't do anything wrong. is a domain name, their hosted service is still called "GitLab", while the Free Software tool is commonly called "GitLab CE".

Also, the whole point was: No one should be forced to use GitLab. There should also no one be required to use the self-hosted GitLab CE, for that matter, everyone should be free to choose their own software forge IMHO.
- Otto

@rysiek @codeberg Gitlab is not FLOSS, it is open core, and you do not get all features in the CE version. You also download proprietary code with the CE version, which you are not allowed to run.

Furthermore, Gitlab is a VC-financed startup company, which inevitably must exit via either an acquisition by a big corporation, or by going public. Considering normal VC fund cycles, this has to happen within the next few years.


Ooo... No weird-ass full name crap like GitLab. That's nice.

The number one reason I could never really get in to GitLab was because my "legal name" is also my anonymous name. My handle is my unique name. You wouldn't think that would be enough to make me avoid the service... But, in practice it was. (It wasn't friendly or welcoming. It was antagonistic and unhelpful when I filed a feature request.)

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!