Enshittification of GitHub?

The only thing surprising is that it took Microsoft almost three years to turn on the shit-spigot.

You gotta embrace first
There's nothing wrong with it honestly, and OP seems to be giving bad info.. And trust me, I'm not a fan of Microsoft lol
i literally just tested Discussions and wiki in private browsing mode on a few repos and they work. Which just proves it's not a big deal that needing a login isn't an issue. Seems nobody actually upvoting doesn't have a login
- I heard other people complaining about what OP says, so I'm thinking maybe it's A/B testing...

Honestly for selfhosters, I can't recommend enough setting up an instance of Gitea. You'll be very happy hosting your code and such there, then just replicate it to github or something if you want it on the big platforms.

Just so you're aware, Gitea was taken over by a for-profit company. Which is why it was forked and Forgejo was formed. If you don't use Github as a matter of principle, then you should switch to Forgejo instead.
- Damnit of course it was. Thanks for letting me know, now I'll have to redo my 100+ repos.
- did they get federation working?
- Thanks for the info
- Oh man, thanks for this. I had no idea, having used gitea for years now.
Forgejo for you chap.
Honestly I'm kind of surprised that Gitea is still being recommended on Lemmy, it's been a while since Gitea was acquired and the community has been raging since. Lemmy is regressing
- Lemmy is regressing
  it is not lol, you are just realising that you are not part of any elite for the simple reason of using it
+1 for Gitea. It's super lightweight, and works really well! I recently switched to Gitlab simply because I wanted experience with hosting it, but Gitea is much lighter and easier to use.
- Forgejo please. Gitea was acquired by a for-profit company
- Maybe have a look at this comment elsewhere in the thread.
Does it have any features that github doesn't?
- Its pretty good, for most people there isn't anything missing
  Actions can't be triggered by workflow dispatch
  Pull requests can't wait for status checks

The writing was on the wall when they established a generative AI using everyone's code and of course without asking anyone for permission.

It's an interesting debate isn't it? Does AI transform something free into something that's not? Or does it simply study the code?
- @xilliah It's not free though. It came with licenses. And LLMs don't have the capability to "study", they are just a glorified random word generator.
- There's no debate. LLMs are plagiarism with extra steps. They take data (usually illegally) wholesale and then launder it.
  A lot of people have been doing research into the ethics of these systems and that's more or less what they found. The reason why they're black boxes is precisely the reason we all suspected; they were made that way because if they weren't we'd all see them for what they are.
- No, it's exhausting.

I moved all my open source projects to Gitlab the day Microsoft announced they were acquiring Github.

(I wish in retrospect I'd taken the time to research and decide on the right host. I likely would have gone to Codeberg instead of Gitlab had I done so. But Gitlab's still better than Github. And I don't really know for sure that Codeberg was even around back when Microsoft acquired Github.)

My first impression of gitlab was offputting because I was using hardened firefox and couldnt get past through cloudflare so I ended up using github. It was also better ui wise but now its just a mess
Edit: slowly i'm starting to move everything to codeberg
I'm OOTL. Why is Codeberg better than GitLab?
- It is FOSS while GitLab EE is not.
  It supports a lot of atifact repository formats while GitLab only docker registry.
  It is a non-commercial project.
- Codeberg is ran by a German nonprofit. GitLab is publically-traded on NASDAQ.
- I'm not really sure it is. I just wish I'd shopped around before jumping to Gitlab, really.
  It kindof feels like Gitlab's aims are more commercial and Codeberg's are more in line with the FOSS movement, but that's just a vague sense I have based on things I've seen but no longer remember specifically.
  CalcProgrammer1's response to my post seems pretty informative and apropos, though.
Codeberg us really new, i think like 2 years. Since covid for sure.
- Ah. Good to know. I don't feel so bad about going with Gitlab now.
- I registered there june 2020 so longer than that
The landscape is changing so fast thanks to LLMs, everything is becoming gated behind logins. Thanks ChatGPT.
Make the move from Gitlab to Codeberg in the last few days: really simple to do, give it a try ;-)
- Yeah, good thought. The only reason I haven't is just because I worry that moving constantly might deter people from using any of my FOSS projects. Just seems like it could be considered a red flag (a sign of a "bad" or poorly-managed project) to some. (And... well... given that I didn't do the research when I moved those projects, it wouldn't be an entirely inaccurate conclusion to draw.)
  Oh, I guess also I'd need to log back into my Github and change everything that says "moved to Gitlab" to say "moved to Codeberg" and update links. (I literally force-pushed to overwrite the entire history of my Github projects with a single commit each with just a README that says it moved to Gitlab with a link.)
  Plus, if I really looked into it, I might decide I'd prefer to self-host on something like Gitea.
  I guess all that to say I'd definitely want to put more thought into it before migrating any particular place a second time. Doing the actual move is indeed the easy part, but there's a lot of thought and research to do before that. And a lot of meta-considerations to take into account.
  Sounds like you like Codeberg, though. Just out of curiosity, what sold you on Codeberg?
I still left my old and unmaintained projects on GitHub but I moved all my active projects to GitLab and any new projects go there too. I have them auto mirrored back to GitHub though as the more mirrors the better. I also recently set up a Codeberg mirror for some of my projects, though GitLab's CI is what is keeping me on GitLab even though they nerfed the shit out of it and made it basically a requirement to host your own runners even for FOSS projects a year or two back. Still hate them for that and if Codeberg gets a solid CI option, leaving GitLab would make me happy. They too have seen quite a lot of enshittification in the years since Microsoft bought GitHub.
- nerfed the shit out of it and made it basically a requirement to host your own runners even for FOSS projects a year or two back.
  Did they just reduce quotas (minutes?, cache storage?) or did they remove features? I've always used self-hosted runner

I'm honestly blown away by whomever finds this surprising. This is Microsoft we're talking about. Everything they touch turns into this. Taking what is not theirs, using it for profit, and not even giving credit where credit is due.

Hold up, are you sure you can’t view Discussions or Wiki? Which sites can you not view them?

I’m fine viewing them for public repos that I usually visit.

Asking to make sure that Github is not slowly rolling out this lockdown.

Most probably. I was viewing discussions about podman, I could view them if directily opened from a link but it required login when navigated to linked pages and wiki

What are good alternatives to GitHub except selfhosting? I only know gitlab.com. Anything else?

Codeberg is very good, and non-profit.
- Thanks, I'll take a look at it. And thanks to all the others. :D
Codeberg
codeberg
Sourcehut
Codeberg
SSH + an HTTP server can work if you are going barebones
I would say bitbucket except I don't recommend bitbucket.

I'm not a developer so I'm not very familiar with this world. But it kind of amazes me that the code for so many open source projects are hosted by Microsoft. Isn't there a FOSS alternative? edit: seems Gitlab is an alternative. Then the question is, why are people using microsoft products?

Codeberg.org is the ethical choice
Github started independently and was amazing service(and still is except now its going downhill) but Microsoft acquired it it 2018
The power of git ( the backbone of github ) comes in that you can easily take a repository and move it to a different server. Its like, 3 commands? ( git vlone, git add remote, git push ). So if people would leave github, nothing is lost :)
- Github is designed to centralize git (as the word "hub" suggests). You can still migrate away code, issues and wikis, but contributors, followers, wiki editors, issue subscribers, visibility in general and github stars are locked in. Discoverability matters to projects trying to attract contributors.

They also broke some stuff with some javascript, I think. I'm using KDE's web browser (Falkon) and it used to work well.

I just checked, and unless I'm missing something, you're wrong? Tried https://github.com/snowplow/snowplow/wiki in private browser mode. Seems to work fine.. Discussions work too.

And the restricted code search is not a big deal. You can still see and download all the source code you want and search that way. What usecase do you have for code searching without login? Lemmy is restricted too without login (as well as literally everything). The funny thing is that the last person I saw make a huge deal of this on Lemmy/Reddit, didn't have a huge number of github commits over the years (they definitely had some, so they were active though, but even our newbies at work overtook them in months)

Creating a login is free too, and so is downloading source code. Github is a FREE service lol.. And you're whinging you need to create a free login? If you don't like Github, then don't use it lol. Absolutely nothing is preventing anyone migrating lol

Lemmy is restricted too without login (as well as literally everything)
You mean that you cannot comment or vote without an account? That just makes sense, because you need an account to tell the server to save some data of yours. That has to be connected to an account. Search does not (unless you are fixated on saving all actions of the user on the platform for behavioral analysis)
The funny thing is that the last person I saw make a huge deal of this on Lemmy/Reddit, didn't have a huge number of github commits over the years (they definitely had some, so they were active though, but even our newbies at work overtook them in months)
Maybe you didn't know, but not everyone in IT (job or hobby) writes code.
Creating a login is free too
Not really: you have to give personal information.
It's not much of a problem until they only need an email address and are not too opinionated on your provider, but it's not rare at all that platforms also require a phone number (either upfront at registration, or discord-microsoft-style, locking you out of your account untill you give it them) which for the most part won't be private at all. Thus, you are paying with your data. For something (repo content) that the maintainers wanted to be public and free.
Creating a login is free too, and so is downloading source code
What about the Wiki and Discussions? Several others said things that make me think it's under A/B testing.

I'm still stuck on why I have to create a password-equivalent API token, and then store it on my hard drive if I want an at-all-convenient workflow.

"We made it more secure!"

"How is storing it on my hard drive more secure"

"Just have it expire after a week!"

"How is it more secure now, seems like now there are two points of failure in the system, and anyway I keep hearing about security problems in github which this hasn't been a solution to any of them"

"SHUT UP THAT'S HOW"

An API token is more secure than a password by virtue of it not needing to be typed in by a human. Phishing, writing down passwords, and the fact that API tokens can have restricted scopes all make them more secure.
Expiration on its own doesn't make it more secure, but it can if it's in the context of loading the token onto a system that you might lose track of/not have access to in the future.
Individual API tokens can also be revoked without revoking all of them, unlike a password where changing it means you have to re-login everywhere.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Lmk if you have questions, though.
- Oh, API tokens in general, I think are great. As an additional layer of security between "I need my program to be able to access this API" and "I type my password", they are great. My issue is with the specific way that github has implemented them.
  An API token is more secure than a password by virtue of it not needing to be typed in by a human.
  Remind me. When I create my API token, how do I provide it to git?
  Am I, more or less, forced to save my token to persistent storage in a way I wouldn't be with a password? I realize that most people store either one in a password manager at this point. My point is, if you're going to store your password-equivalent in a password manager, how have you achieved greater security as compared with storing a password in the same password manager? How is that not just adding another compromise vector?
  Phishing
  Remind me. Does making a system significantly more complex mean that phishing gets easier? Or harder?
  As an example, if someone can phish my password from me to compromise my security, is that better or worse than if they can either phish my password or else compromise my tokens? I remember this compromise for example, but I can't remember whether it involved passwords or tokens.
  writing down passwords
  Remind me. Help me understand. Can someone write down their github password if the API token system exists? If they have to use it sometimes to log in to the web site anyway?
  and the fact that API tokens can have restricted scopes
  Yes. API tokens are a good system, in general, and restricting the scope of what they can do and making them time-limited are good reasons why.
  My argument is that, in general, (a) adding an additional point of access to a system without doing anything to disable the existing point of access, and (b) saving a password equivalent to someone's system instead of having the "standard way" be for them to retype their password to authenticate each session but not have it saved anywhere, are both overall reductions in security.
  I get the motivation that github sometimes protects really critical stuff, and so it needs to be more secure. I am saying that their particular implementation of API tokens led to an overall reduction in security as opposed to an increase.
Never used it in GitHub, but in GitLab it is not password equivalent, you can restrict its usage.
- it's obviously the same in github OP don't know what is talking about lol
Because of someone gets your API token they can only push and pull. If someone gets your password they can do anything
- Let's go over the attack vectors involved for different common workflows. I'm going to use the specific case of how I use git.
  Store passwords in pass, have them memorized and type them anew every time
  Store passwords in pass, store API tokens in OSX keychain
  Which is more secure? The thing that you're saying is better-protected because it's limited, doesn't exist in workflow #1. The tokens aren't limited to push and pull, because they're limited to nothing.
  If someone gets my password in case #2, they can still do anything. That's my central point -- you haven't removed any point of vulnerability, you've created another point of vulnerability and then mandated that people use it. And this isn't an abstract issue; there are several compromises of github data stemming from people's API tokens being compromised. My assertion is that in some of those cases, using case #1 instead of storing the API tokens would have prevented the compromise. Maybe I am wrong in that. I know that password compromises happen too. But my point is, you're not preventing anybody from getting their password compromised. Someone can still steal my password out of pass. Someone who puts a keylogger on my computer will have the passwords to my OSX keychain and pass, both. You're simply introducing another point of compromise, additional to password compromises, and mandated storage of your new password-equivalents on storage where before you at least had the option of memorizing them and typing them every time.
  Edit: And just to say it again, I have no problem with API tokens. If someone's got an automated workflow set up, such that they have to set up a password-equivalent on their script that accesses github, they should absolutely create a usage-restricted API token and use that instead. I'm talking more specifically about the decision to ban people from typing their passwords when they want to interact with github, pretending that somehow that makes compromising the un-usage-restricted password impossible (when it doesn't at all), and forcing people to store auth tokens in their local storage when they'd rather type their password every time.

Compared to Gitlab, it definitely is shit already. And that has nothing to do with the artificial restrictions. God I hate this website. I appreciate their service, but the UI is genuinely trash.

You don't need the question mark. If something is for-profit (or can be used for profit) then sooner or later it will be enshittified.

They have teams of people whose entire job is figuring out ways to wring a few more cents from somebody. Put them at the helm of a company that's stood for 1000 years and they'll be thrilled at how easy it will be to use that name to sell plastic dogshit at a premium price.

What about the time they fired their artists and then immediately wrote a blog post congratulating themselves for making AI art from a model trained on the ex-employees' art. Inspiring.

GitHub has art?
- https://twitter.com/MaximeDeGreve/status/1670715762762305537?s=20

I don't really feel like self-hosting a Git instance is a good idea for me personally, but I've been really happy with Gitlab for around 8 years now

They also added some crappy requirements to their student benefit package.

Are you trying to get people to use it, or trying to get people to accidentally keep paying a subscription?

It could be much worse.

- Be it will?
Yeah... It could be.. OP could have checked their facts for starters
Not sure how they got so many votes. i literally just tested Discussions and wiki in private browsing mode on a few repos and they work.
- Because after placing code search through the login wall, and everything that is copilot it can really be expected that something like this happens. That you don't see it does not tell much, as companies large like this are making good use of A/B testing.
- Not sure how they got so many votes.
  Social media loves a good roasting.

The final strawberry for me was forcing people to have 2fa.

Eh? That was the final straw?
Why? That's a good thing.
- You don’t need the question mark. If something is for-profit (or can be used for profit) then sooner or later it will be enshittified.
  They have teams of people whose entire job is figuring out ways to wring a few more cents from somebody. Put them at the helm of a company that’s stood for 1000 years and they’ll be thrilled at how easy it will be to use that name to sell plastic dogshit at a premium price.
  No. I am able to decide for myself, whether or not I need 2FA. A code via E-Mail is enough for me. If you feel like you need 2FA; feel free to enable it for yourself...