I'm a former Mozillian and a lifelong Firefox user (continuously since Firefox has existed, at least). I know Firefox is slower. I can feel it and have felt it on every system I've ever owned, and am constantly reminded once every few months or weeks or so when I open up Chrome to check something and am confronted with how much snappier it is—even without an ad blocker, which I don't have installed because I don't actually use Chrome.
I know all this and I use Firefox anyway because I don't care.
What I don't do is go online and comment about how there's no difference when there is clearly a difference. Pretending things are otherwise comes across as some form of denial or delusion.
Pretty much every podcast in the world and all of their listeners are using RSS. WordPress powers something like 30% of the Web, and most of the operators behind those sites are publishing RSS whether they know it or not.
I thought I was more clear than I was being about rss in the context of the conversation about text based news.
How many people consuming text via rss the same way people consume audio via podcasts?
We're talking about text here. We all know how this sentence ends, "You should start a ..." and it isn't rss feed. Everyone used to have a blog and nobody really cared. Now everyone has a podcast and (more) people do. People don't know what an rss feed is.
> We all know how this sentence ends, "You should start a ..." and it isn't rss feed.
I don't know what this means. I'm guessing the correct answer is supposed to be "podcast"? Even so, weird false dichotomy.
That looking at tweets and listening to podcasts is more popular than reading long-form blog posts via RSS has a lot more to do with people's revealed preference for looking at tweets and listening to podcasts versus reading long-form blogs than it has to do with RSS.
(The actual context was delivery of notices by public services through non-Twitter feeds, anyway. Not blogging.)
> People don't know what an rss feed is.
I don't know why you think this is relevant here. It seems that when you're referring to using "RSS", what you mean is for people to care about RSS—in the way that Gemini, Secure Scuttlebutt, etc. have always been about caring about (and almost exclusively using them to talk about) Gemini, Secure Scuttlebutt, etc. than they ever were actually expected to be used organically and non-self-referentially.
The fact is that people (already/still) use RSS today. It hasn't been defeated. And Twitter could turn into an RSS-based feed reader tomorrow that works basically the same as it works today, and then suddenly everyone would be using RSS but no one would drop out because of it. Because people don't know (read: care) what an RSS feed is.
The amount of Codeberg FUD one can encounter on HN is unreal. I'm starting to question whether there's an organized effort behind it.
Both personal and private repos are explicitly permitted in the Codeberg TOS:
> Private repositories[…] allowed for really small & personal stuff like your journal, config files, ideas or notes, but explicitly not as a personal cloud or media storage.
As if there wasn't a massive amount of nuance between "you may keep your dotfiles private but don't upload your photo library". If their rules read this arbitrary, I wouldn't trust them to host any of my stuff, especially considering that you always have to hope they don't change their rules any further.
Assume you did some local LLM stuff in June that worked with a 200MB set of various jpegs and you wanted to keep it private: Is this still legit in September 2026? I wouldn't rely on it.
> , I wouldn't trust them to host any of my stuff, especially considering that you always have to hope they don't change their rules any further.
Yeah, I think this is a win-win for both parties.
You strike me as someone who would "ride along the lines of the terms of service" basically, and you'll see anything not explicitly forbidden as being allowed essentially.
While Codeberg is a project driven by humans, with human reactions to what's happening. If you're not comfortable with rules not being 100% defined, and requiring a humans value judgement to be had to figure out if the rule is broken or not, I don't think Codeberg is for you.
The rest of us, who are OK with humans making decisions rather than just going by what's written in rules, are fine with this, because we know our private repositories won't be deleted. And if they are, you'll be able to speak with a human to explain, and if your intention is fine and good, they'll be OK with it. But if you try to argue about some "That wasn't explicitly stated", then yeah, they'll probably get tired of you quickly.
Think your participating in your local user group vs some corporate/government forum, the rules will be enforced differently.
Do X in whatever way you want, if you do so knowing it's against the terms of service, you're "riding along the line of the terms of service" for sure if you try to explain away how it is/isn't explicitly forbidden.
No, it was just against every value Codeberg ever stood for, and against the value humanity should stand for. There was no ambiguity ever about this. There is no moral ambiguity that if people develop military FLOSS on codeberg they will be banned, even though it's not in the ToS right now, because that's the right thing to do and the community will reach a consensus that we want to support human communities, not military organisations who destroy them.
The rules say nothing about military AI and currently include selfhosted LLMs as well:
> You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex). Such projects having an unclear copyright status (see requirements § 2 (1) 1 and § 2 (1) 3) and furthermore have little safeguards to ensure that they do not include harmful code (c.f. § 2 (1) 5).
At least stick with the truth before launching with "the right the to do" (which is also a pretty bad rule because it's completely ambiguous.)
I'm fine with ambiguous rules. A non-profit is not a legislative body, though to be fair even actual laws are usually ambiguous and contradictory and that's why we have lawyers and judges and such.
Ambiguous rules with clear objectives is what gives a non-profit the power to be flexible in the way to accomplish common goals. It's based on human trust and is fine by me and others. If you ever were part of a non-profit, you know human trust is an essential component.
Ok, point being? Codeberg is a non-profit community that evolves and figures out where to move, all the time, this is the point of the association itself. Members discuss what to do, then a decision is made, then new rules eventually apply, this is how the project moves forward.
You said people were “riding the line”. They weren’t. Codeberg made up a rule that excluded eligibility for projects they were already hosting. Projects that were not illegal, indecent or dangerous. I can’t think of another time something like that has happened. They can do it, sure, but many had hoped they could be an independent host for all FOSS as GitHub deteriorates. They have disappointed those hopes, and we will have to look to others - like Codefloe - to carry that hope forward.
> Codeberg made up a rule that excluded eligibility for projects they were already hosting
What does "made up" mean? It was a decision by the actual members of the platform, you know, the actual people using it! Nothing "made up" about it.
I think it's pretty clear you don't have an idea of what Codeberg is trying to be, nor do you have any interest in understanding, you just want to push this "Codefloe" platform for some reason. Codeberg make very public what the platform is for and yes, that'll change in the future too, as the world changes.
I'm sorry that phrase offends you so much that you have to resort to personal attacks. Why don't you respond to the actual substance?
The reason I'm supporting Codefloe is written in the comment you are responding to. Codeberg is not interested in hosting all FOSS, and Codefloe is. That is the reason. Its very simple.
It is pretty clear you are not making any effort at all to understand the problem people have with Codeberg's rug pull.
Not one programmer i know does this. Well no actually, one does because his boss makes him but it's so shitty he basically AI-washes his own job. How come on HN every week i come across someone who believes programming is dead and everyone has been brainwashed by Silicon Valley execs into destroying the planet with LLMs?
Honestly it is astonishing to me that there are still people who believe things like this. AI is just a tool. Software development still requires human minds.
There are people who don't understand that and crank out slop. Fuck those people. That isn't what I do.
There are people who don't understand that and won't host my FOSS. Well, I've found someone who will.
„ and if your intention is fine and good, they'll be OK with it“
That doesn’t work because „fine and good“ doesn’t mean the same thing to Codeberg voters/admins and to a large part of the hacke news population. Notably, Codeberg is morally opposed to AI.
> That doesn’t work because „fine and good“ doesn’t mean the same thing to Codeberg voters/admins and to a large part of the hacke news population.
Why on earth would Codeberg give even the slighest fucks about what the "hacker news population" finds "fine and good"? Makes absolutely zero sense.
Codeberg made those things against the Terms of Service because paying members who use the platform voted for exactly that. This is how Codeberg works, the members of the platform decides how it works.
You changed the topic. The topic is not what Codeberg should care about. The topic was trust in the humans behind Codeberg to not delete private repositories on a whim. Codeberg community is free to care about whatever it sees fit. That doesn't protect them from criticism.
Do I trust humans behind Codeberg to behave sensibly? No.
Would more precise terms of service that explain what Codeberg community thinks is ok help with such trust? Yes.
Should the humans behind Codeberg care what I think? Maybe? Presumably they do care about reaching _some_ users, otherwise why have the service public at all?
What a weird take coming from a pro-Codeberg perspective considering that many their users I are proudly #actuallyautistic people who would prefer strict rules to follow in order to feel secure.
> The rest of us, who are OK with humans making decisions rather than just going by what's written in rules [...]
Better speak for yourself and not infer from your own views to others. With bad intention this could be interpreted as if I was incapable of dealing with human decisions when all I stated is that I mistrust people who rugpull me.
"Use it for your personal notes, your side project or any other[sic] you want to keep private".
(That's even ignoring that I was addressing the claim that you actually made, which is different from the one you're making now; you're moving the goalposts.)
That language is not in the terms of service. The word "side" does not appear on that page.
The terms of service state:
> Private repositories are only allowed for things required for FLOSS projects, like storing secrets, team-internal discussions or hiding projects from the public until they're ready for usage and/or contribution. They are also allowed for really small & personal stuff like your journal, config files, ideas or notes, but explicitly not as a personal cloud or media storage.
The TOS Section 1:
> Our service is open for all projects covered by a licence for free and open source software, free and open source hardware, or free cultural works as defined by § 2 (1) 1.
So the "FUD" I am spreading is literally the headline of the legal terms of service. There is an organization behind the spread of this information, and it is Codeberg e.V.
You have made two concrete claims about Codeberg that are verifiably untrue:
"Codeberg does not permit personal repos"
"A private git repo with my own code, is not permitted"
Codeberg's policy explicitly permits personal repos, including private code repos. Both of your claims are false. There is no getting around this, no matter how much you try to move the goalposts or the other forms of conversational misdirection you're trying to pull off here.
You have made two concrete claims about Codeberg that are verifiably untrue:
"Codeberg does not permit personal repos"
"A private git repo with my own code, is not permitted"
Codeberg's policy explicitly permits personal repos, including private code repos. Both of your claims are false. There is no getting around this, no matter how much you try to move the goalposts or the other forms of conversational misdirection you're trying to pull off here.
> At best, registering an OAuth client is 5 minutes of clicking around a developer portal. But you never know.[…] DCR automates the client registration problem. Instead of requiring a human to manually get an OAuth client, your app dynamically provisions one, and then immediately starts the OAuth flow to this app it had never heard of before.
In the remoteStorage protocol, providers have been instructed to ignore client_id in lieu of identifying the connecting app by its origin.
Consider whether you'd be questioning this if the author had written that within minutes of his daughter being born, her photo was on Facebook. The only thing it suffers from is not being normalized and taking marginally more* effort, while being nowhere nearly as creepy.
* or arguably the same amount or less; for additional context: the author is an ex-Googler
That's not accurate. A valid understanding of the form/process should result in an expectation of a referral to RSTEP to evaluate the impact on security and stability. But that didn't happen.
Today I feel like some guy who spent 6 years studying the curvature of iguana toes (or something equally random) and finally sees questions about them for the first time in his life :D.
Significant effort is spent detailing the relevant parts the RSEP process, confirming and detailing exactly how it was followed correctly. This specifically included whether certain matters were considered for referral (or should have been referred) to RSTEP for review. It's a tragedy to disagree with the well written reconsideration request document without responding to where you feel its analysis was incorrect & why, particularly content from sections:
- 4.2.1, designated to contain inquiries related to the RSEP process and if it was accurately followed, including:
- 4.2.1.3 referencing the parts of the RSTEP process defining when RSTEP should be engaged
- 4.2.2.1 highlighting how voluntary advanced collaboration prior to starting the RSEP process has made the dedicated referral processes referenced in 4.2.1.3 rarely relevant
- 4.2.2.2 containing a confirmation by the Ombuds that the preliminary portion of the process was done correctly and with the required info (including the list of 22k domains shared voluntarily before the preliminary phase began, without need to formally refer to RSTEP)
- & 4.3 concretely explaining in more plain terms why the Ombuds is sympathetic to the user but believes ICANN correctly followed the RSEP process in not engaging RSTEP for the concerns raised and re-raised
About the only thing I think could have been pre-emptively added was a reference to the definitions of Security and Stability concerns, which helps explain why it would have made no sense for RSEP to declare Security or Stability issues in need of referral during preliminary review, let alone "significant" and even ignoring the voluntary early engagement activity:
> 1.2 Security - An effect on security by the proposed Registry Service shall mean (A) the unauthorized disclosure, alteration, insertion or destruction of Registry Data, or (B) the unauthorized access to or disclosure of information or resources on the Internet by systems operating in accordance with all applicable standards.
> 1.3 Stability - An effect on stability shall mean that the proposed Registry Service (A) is not compliant with applicable relevant standards that are authoritative and published by a well-established, recognized and authoritative standards body, such as relevant Standards-Track or Best Current Practice RFCs sponsored by the IETF or (B) creates a condition that adversely affects the throughput, response time, consistency or coherence of responses to Internet servers or end systems, operating in accordance with applicable relevant standards that are authoritative and published by a well-established, recognized and authoritative standards body, such as relevant Standards-Track or Best Current Practice RFCs and relying on Registry Operator's delegation information or provisioning services.
Requesting authorization to terminate a given service & related registrations is clearly neither an unauthorized action/disclosure on registry data as well as clearly not against an IETF RFC. Notably, "Stability" is not defined as "has impact to users" - as well stated towards the end of the reconsideration request:
> Second, on the consideration of material information – the loss of approximately 22,000 is important
to the individuals–however, this is not relevant to the strictly defined, community-developed policy
One can find the source for the material quoted in the reconsideration request response as well as the definitions I I added in above at https://www.icann.org/rsep-en/
Man I used to develop SAAS software using Cappuccino. Since I knew Objc (and JS/CSS) really well it was such a beautiful system for development. I'm sad it never went anywhere
when Cappuccino was written, Apple was still using the Objective-C + AppKit stack. It had been honing this stack for years, every WWDC brought useful and deliberate improvements. Back then macOS development was much more niche (and tech in general). They could take their time. MacOS releases happened every couple of years, not every year. Not the kind of outcome we have nowadays where changes are rushed because of demand.
Cappuccino improved upon javascript by using a different language (objective-j) that added many features js didn't have, and it used the same (mostly) well-honed api as AppKit. In comparison to other js UI frameworks of its time, it was lightyears ahead.
(For those not catching on that the claim was written in jest, the person commenting here is not the creator of this project nor have they committed any code.)
reply