184
"secure alternative"? Others are not secure?
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
184 points (100.0% liked)
Open Source
821 readers
2 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Didn't you know? This cloud provider offers lead-free, gluten-free computing services without antibiotics! Also it's not tested on animals!
Are they actually stating "secure alternative"? I only see this on the Lemmy post but not on the linked site. Of course, there is "Security & Compliance", but not in distinction to GitHub or Gitlab
From the way the explain it this is just "more secure" but only if you use a shared VPS for your hosting, which I have no idea what percentage of hosters do. Seems like confusing but valid marketing to me.
It's also pretty easy to just roll your own gitea server.
How does it distinguish itself from GitLab?
IME it's way easier to self-host
From my personal experience running GitLab and Forgejo (Gitea Drop-In replacement/Fork):
- Gitea/Forgejo is easier to get running
- UI is less bloated/faster
- GitLab redesigned their UI and imo it's shit now
- No features locked behind a "Pro" Version (Pull or Bidirectional mirrors are for example unavailable on GitLab self-hosted unless you shell out for premium)
- Gitea Actions is a lot more intuitive than GitLab CI, this is likely personal preference but it's still an important factor
I have no experience with forgejo but I agree with all of the above in terms of gitea v gitlab
Thirded
Forgejo has different development priorities but feature wise they should be identical since the Forgejo devs also push their code upstream into Gitea
Definitely agree on the UI part. The UI of Gitea/Forgejo is very intuitive and easy to understand. When you go to a repository you just have the tabs to go to issues etc. and you can always see those at the top. The first time I used GitLab, I found it very unintuitive. There were 2 sidebars on the left side with their respective buttons right on top of each other. Issues and stuff are also in the sidebar, so I couldn't find them immediately.
Gitlab used to be cute, small, and innovative (as in open). But now it's too bloated. Gitlab CI is not well designed and half-baked.
Hey now! Gitlab ci is totally fine so long as your simply running your build.sh file out of it. Anything more and your risking madness.
Also, with gitea the table of contents for org files are properly rendered in HTML as it should be. As someone that uses org-mode this is a reason to avoid gitlab.
But for most people I'd say the less resources that gitea requires means you save on compute and ultimately is cheaper to host.
I've been running my own gitea server on kubernetes and with istio for over 3 years with no issues.
I have honestly no idea what the GitLab devs did but their service is such an incredible memory hog it's insane. Obviously GitLab has a pages service tacked onto it but my GitLab instance (mostly legacy but a friend still uses it so it keeps chugging along) eats a whole 5GB of RAM while my Forgejo Instance only uses 200MB. I have no idea where all of that memory is going because it sure as hell isn't going into responsitivity. I've no idea if I configured something wrong or if it's GitLab pages but it's still excessive
Its mostly the default settings of Gitlab being complete overkill for self-hosters. You can cut the requirements down to 25% of the default if you don't use the installer or the default docker compose.
However Gitlab is written in Ruby, while Gitea is written in Golang, so there is definitely some advantage there for Gitea.
It's even possible to self-host. Afaik you don't get to Self-Host GitHub unless you are a giant corporation.
Edit: nvm I thought it said "GitHub"
Self-Hosting GitHub is available under the name "GitHub Enterprise", but there is nothing stopping a smaller company from getting an "Enterprise" license. At my job we are running self-hosted GitHub for less than 50 developers.
smaller company
true but then again that isn't quite what I meant with my comment. For an individual looking for a self-hosted forge GitHub just isn't really an option. Pricing aside having to go through a sales channel and then likely not having full control over the software stack is not what individuals look for when they want to host a private git service
It does need only a fraction of the resources.
Wasn’t the project bought out by some company, that now is behind this cloud service?
No, some of the core Gitea developers decided to incorporate a Hongkong based for profit company to better monitize services offered to companies.
This by itself is not such a bad idea, but it was communicated incredibly poorly with the community left in the dark for at least half a year and the subsequent fallout was also dealt with poorly.
I think the best way forward for self-hosters is Forgejo because of that, but that doesn't mean Gitea is currently a bad choice.
That's why the fork Forgejo was made. Codeberg uses that fork as well.
Codeberg is iirc the main entity behind it, at the very least they are using some of their funds to support it
I think they aren't the ones who made the fork tho but just the ones with the most resources out of everyone working on the project. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I would be less critical of this if it was not the same company managing Gitea, it seems like a decent enough platform but having Gitea be OpenSource is a detraction from possible profits because nothing stops anyone from creating a service like this for cheaper.
I hope the company behind this stays on the good path but I'm not holding my breath, I'll be sticking to Forgejo for the time being.
I'm still bummed that Bitbucket is going cloud-only. We've been using it on-premises for years and it has been lovely. Atlassian must be concerned that their customers won't follow them into the cloud bc they just sent out a customer survey (about two years two late).
The enshittification of Bitbucket started when they dropped Mercurial support. It's been a downward slide since then.