If I want to create 100 repos of vibe coded projects every month someone will have to pay for it.
At this point, just give me an honest version of GitHub that tells me what things actually cost. 5$ a repo, and another 1 per gb stored in LFS, cool.
When you are wanting to join a federated network, you have two choices: join a pre-existing server thereby creating the exact same problem you are escaping, ie: a giant server that holds you to its whims, BUT you do get a big network to begin with.
Or you start your own server but your network is zero, discoverability is zero, your feed is empty, and you have to convince other sites to federate with you / not block you for the crime of being a 1 person server / etc.
Am I alone in this feeling or am I just doing federation wrong? (But also this may just be a problem / quirk of Mastodon)
It’s a bit long but should give you a really crisp picture.
Even though it's federated, when development stops, who will be there to fix bugs and maintain it?
VC money is a means to an end. We're both Indian founders in Europe, and grants are nigh on impossible to find (4–12+ months for anything to materialize). VC is quite simply the quickest way for us to build a team, setup infra and accelerate development. We're also incredibly aligned with our investors on our goals (we took 6+ months to find the perfect partner for this).
While I was quite excited about some of the ideas being discussed in this project, it being VC backed is a complete non starter for me. Your claims of being built in the open don’t make me feel any better, you will eventually need to make returns for investors.
I'm with the OP you're replying to. Taking VC is an albatross that means a large portion of devs will never trust you or use your services (outside of bleeding your funds dry).
If this place truly cared about community they should have made a non-profit or some type of NGO, basically anything with a true community governance model. Not the current model of caring about money over a community.
We currently live in a society that solely cares about money and seriously doubt devs want to continue uplifting the current system that only benefits the rich at the expense of everyone else.
How many board seats does the company plan on giving to the community to ensure enshittification doesn't occur?
There are plenty of examples of VC funded companies that care about community & don't "only care about profit". Bluesky is a good one (literally a community / social platform). That's such a black & white take it baffles me.
> Taking VC is an albatross that means a large portion of devs will never trust you or use your services
A "large portion of devs" (the majority) use so many VC funded services? Probably _most_ services devs use are VC funded. GitHub itself - was VC funded.
You can have an anti-VC opinion but you have to also live in reality.
Those of us who use it. Tangled is a neat project and architecturally it makes a lot of interesting choices but code-wise it's relatively simple and from my personal forays in it I'd say pretty easy to maintain.
The majority of the codebase is loosely related go modules. Then some static HTML+CSS. And finally a small sprinkle of typescript to tie things together. And of course a bit of Nix for orchestration.
IIRC it all runs on a pretty trivial amount of hardware that a single person could currently host by themself.
Users' knots, spindles, and PDS (plus atproto at large) do the real heavy lifting infra-wise.
Why does it need VCs? Why not company and corporate sponsorship like Ladybird?
Why should we spend our time on a developer tool that would be enshittified down the line when VCs expect 10x returns?
So even if they don't expect returns from a given atproto project, they are investing money (and therefore funding FTEs) in the ecosystem at large.
The investment isn't necessarily in any one of these projects in isolation. It's in the AT protocol at large.
You talk about corporate sponsorship like that's trivial to find. Trust me when I say we spent over half a year chasing down grants/sponsorships only to be met with closed doors, extremely long wait times for pennies. We'd also be required to keep our day jobs—which means less focus on Tangled dev, and ultimately very slow progress overall.
We debated VC heavily (we're both idealists after all), but figured we can make it work—it's ultimately the founders that make bad calls leading to enshittification. There's plenty of examples of VC-backed companies that haven't enshittified. Tailscale is an excellent one, and hence we brought on Avery as an angel in our round.
Jokes aside, I think we need stronger arguments as to why something like activity pub is not good enough to solve the problem instead of trying to come up a new way of solving the "decentralized comms" problem.
AP isn't completely stagnant but there's a reason AT is still holding on to and accelerating that early developer excitement AP had. Maybe it's marketing, maybe it's money, maybe it's some technical thing. Maybe it's the community. Whatever it is, people seem to enjoy developing in the Atmosphere in a way I never saw on AP.
ActivityPub is email-shaped. Servers are inboxes sending messages to each other.
atproto is web-shaped. User repositories host data (like personal sites or git/RSS), while apps aggregate from repositories (like Google Reader).
Different topologies lead to different properties. Eg atproto lets user change hosting with no disruption in app experience. atproto also lets anyone build new apps aggregating over existing data.
ActivityPub doesn’t allow either of those things. It’s literally a bunch of small centralized coupled hosting+app services messaging each other.
(as I understand it) the data has to live in a PDS, PDS are keyed by accounts, so you are similarly stymied for collaborative projects? I guess AT Proto is still a real work in progress so maybe that story has improved since the last time I checked it out.
https://dholms.leaflet.pub/3meluqcwky22a
https://dholms.leaflet.pub/3mfrsbcn2gk2a
this is the key bit, atproto has this. sidecar services like knot can use service authentication[0] for authenticated requests.
Decentralizing the code isn't an issue; cloning repo's between servers is so standard that any forge can import a code repo from any other forge.
The difficulty is ancillary stuff like issue trackers, wikis and MRs, but using a federated protocol for that seems ill-advised given the much weaker safeguards against spam. Mailing lists have a very large existing body of work on the matter of dealing with spam and a proven method of mirroring/archival. (Most git wikis are just git repositories with a different renderer.)
The main reason nobody likes doing git-over-email is mostly just because it's very user-unfriendly to set up (since modern mail clients typically aren't correctly configured to deal with them). It's a very developer oriented workflow in the worst way possible. A modernized mailing list program that automatically takes care of things like reformatting emails/not leaking email addresses to the general public would go a long way to make it easier to deal with.
Spam/moderation is going to be the biggest hurdle to overcome with any distributed forge effort. It'll likely come down to some kind of web-of-trust/vouching system, but it's delicate balancing ease of access with not making it a slog to constantly manage spam.
The main difference was atproto wanted to tackle scale, so we went with a servers & aggregation model. Radicle is going for device-to-device networking as a primary goal.
Yes, GitHub is temporarily breaking under the increased load, yes, it's likely to still be a thing in 2 months, and no, it's unlikely to still be a thing in 12 months.
It's very unlikely a cool new thing will peel enough developers off GitHub in the next six months to survive long term as GitHub inevitably gets its ability to handle the new normal scale back.
I’m self-hosting with cgit, maybe I could move my private repos to SourceHut? Idk.
But you're right, the protocol doesn't currently support this.
I used JJ for a bit, but I personally really, really dislike the anonymous branch approach it forces you into.
Branches are just useful conceptually, at least to me. For the same reason I like my documents grouped into folders.
Frankly - I think JJ just ended up taking up far more mental bandwidth than git. Simple operations need generated ids, commands require complicated input (ex - the entire revset thing), I have to be constantly thinking about the tool and its structure.
It feels really oversold to me. It's solving problems for people who live in source control, not problems for people who just want snapshots of code every now and then. Hell - just look at some of the example commands from the suggested tutorial:
jj new ym z r yx m -m "merge: steve's branch"
jj log -r 'ancestors(trunk, 2)'
jj new o
jj log -r '@ | ancestors(remote_bookmarks().., 2) | trunk()'
---
With all due respect, if the intro tutorial to your tool includes a command having to literally write function names in quoted commands, or run a command with fucking 8 (EIGHT!) arguments... You've jumped the shark.
Not trying to harsh anyone's buzz - if you like it... great, it's clearly quite powerful. But it misses the mark for me. I want "just powerful enough" with minimal mental overhead.
`jj` is a wrapper around git and offers a much better dev-ex for managing changes.
it has features like:
- conflicts are first class citizens
- `rebase` is the default mode; there is no need for an interactive rebase mode.
- all descendant changes automatically rebase
- a much more intuitive version of `git reflog`. in `jj`, we have `jj op log`
- cheap branching: branches in `jj` are just tags (or bookmarks) that can be moved around
That said the solution is simple. Open a secondary, or a new primary, account with another provider and add it to your project's list of remotes. Here:
git remote add <name here> <URI>
Boom, problem solved: do it yourself redundancy/decentralization. If you want to make this federated then write a file containing a variety of remotes per addressed location and a script to dynamically update git according to your catalog at every location.
Not if your CI depends on github, or if you have specific actions to review things, or if you use SSO because you're an enterprise, or....
Workarounds exist for each of these cases, but they add significant friction. That's not terrible if you're one person, but if you're an org? big problem.
Enterprise Cloud up time is 100% for last 90 days for most services, with a one being at 99.98 and one at 99.97.
Enterprise customers get an SLA
Edit: I absolutely support federated forges, including Tangled as well as ActivityPub based approaches like the (slow) progress to federate Forgejo.
Issue trackers can be self-hosted from fully mature applications via docker images. You might find something here: https://selfh.st/apps/
CI is typically actioned from a configuration file in your repository to a CI SAAS solution, which could be anything. Travis CI was popular for a long time. When I was big into CI SAAS my favorite was Semaphore CI.
Or rather, it will go over way too well.
If you push a lot of new features but your baseline is constantly failing, then something is wrong.
My POV: Github actions are inconsistent in billing, security and require alot of attention to do right. Github has worse uptime than alot of free online videogame services, when most enterprise and business world leans on it for developers. Leaving a lot of users with terrible experience the past year having to constantly examine github firefighting for issues around availability, security, and billing instead of doing work that makes the company/people money.
Example walk through of securing github actions for ci/cd and managing SBOM python dependancy/supply chains (giant complexity) [1], Github has remote code execution[2], Uptime by 3rd party tracker shows 86% past 90 days. (First quarter in 2 years where they didn't have atleast one month above 90% uptime) [3]
[1] https://astral.sh/blog/open-source-security-at-astral [2] https://www.wiz.io/blog/github-rce-vulnerability-cve-2026-38... [3] https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/
This is likely on the back of Mitchell Hashimoto (Hashicorp founder) announcing he’s moving off of Github as well.
And really just years of Github feeling inconsistent, bad UX, no good solutions for open source developers in terms of AI spam etc.
Check a local repo and go to pr's, there's a big banner telling you there's an ongoing ncident
https://blog.tangled.org/seed/
It always ends the same way.
enshittification.
Also:
> Bain Capital Crypto is an investor.
A crypto VC is invested in this.
This is not the solution.
Look how well that has turned out even though Bluesky is open source.
Tangled is not funded by the community.
It would be better if it was rather than it be owned by VCs.
??? Bluesky can make decisions, mistakes, or moderation choices you disagree with and you can just go to https://blacksky.community, a completely independent AppView with different moderation that was up for the entirety of a 24hr outage Bluesky recently had.
I'd say AT Protocol is turning out pretty well.
Bluesky PBC still has major influence of the AT Protocol.
> and you can just go to https://blacksky.community, a completely independent AppView
Swapping one broken chair for another broken chair won’t cut it.
Development and steering is subsidised by VCs funding Bluesky at this point. (especially a crypto VC)
Have you ever asked whats in it for them?
What plans are they going to put into the protocol?
I can see the AT Protocol shoving crypto payments or whatever in their insatiable quest for growth and ROI, because when the funding money runs out when BS miss their growth targets, this is what happens.
And for Tangled’s monetisation path, it is questionable.
So no.
Not a solution.