Gitea launches cloud service to provide a secure alternative to GitHub and GitLab
Gitea launches cloud service to provide a secure alternative to GitHub and GitLab
Gitea - Git with a cup of tea! Painless self-hosted all-in-one software development service, including Git hosting, code review, team collaboration, package registry and CI/CD
"secure alternative"? Others are not secure?
59Didn't you know? This cloud provider offers lead-free, gluten-free computing services without antibiotics! Also it's not tested on animals!
28Permanently Deleted
25I guess it depends on your threat model, but if you're dealing with mission critical proprietary code then it should really never be leaving your own companies infrastructure, imo. If for some reason it is necessary to use enterprise cloud hosting, established actors like Github, Gitlab or even Bitbucket still seem like the obvious choice.
The issue is this "Gitea Ltd." company (or is it "CommitGo Inc." now? honestly pretty confusing...) which appears to have been created with the singular purpose of monetizing Gitea, appeared out of thin air with no input from the community that actually develops Gitea. They're basically saying "you can't trust those other smelly hosts that have existed for years and have contracts with tons of huge companies, but you should definitely trust us with your stuff bro!". Seems off to me.
9Are 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
8From 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.
3
Everyone here is just ignoring the fact that this gitea is not the same gitea it used to be
The new one is called forgejo, and everyone should use that instead of gitea
40What is wrong with gitea? Is not forgejo just a slightly modified fork that is regularly synchronized with gitea codebase? I know nothing about motivation of forgejo authors, where can I read about it?
11I'll try to summarize:
- Gitea is managed by a For-Profit that apparently popped out of nowhere -> profit motive conflicts directly with FOSS and since the corp isn't well known it must be assumed acquisition was solely to make money
- Gitea now requires Copyright attribution, meaning if you push code to Gitea in an existing file it ain't your code anymore -> omega level oof for a FOSS project because this essentially kills any upstream contributing (as seen by Forgejo deciding to stop their contributions)
- This Cloud Service being offered when Self-Hosting Gitea is really easy, again -> profit motive conflicts with FOSS but now on steroids because a "core" feature of their service will limit their ability to make more money
45
What happened to gitea? Been hearing more about Forgejo recently but haven't checked it out yet
4see my reply here
5
It's also pretty easy to just roll your own gitea server.
23How does it distinguish itself from GitLab?
23IME it's way easier to self-host
33From 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
51
It does need only a fraction of the resources.
7GitLab is mean for large enterprise environments. It's overkill for most users. Gogs/Gitea/Forgejo focus on simplicity. These are also pretty easy to self-host.
2
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).
16The enshittification of Bitbucket started when they dropped Mercurial support. It's been a downward slide since then.
2
Wasn’t the project bought out by some company, that now is behind this cloud service?
16No, 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.
21
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.
10Anybody interested in a plain git server with Cgit as a front-end? It's fast
4I am, do you have any good guide for that before I dive into deep google dives?
1
That's cool I guess, but it's easy enough to just spin up your own instance that you fully control in like ten minutes. Can't see myself using this or recommending it to employers. Maybe I'm missing the point?
1While debatable, It's often cheaper to pay someone to host than to do it yourself. Imagine a 1 sysadmin small devshop that doesn't want to pay for 24/7 on call support but does have devs working in different time zones. Or a big enterprise that needs support (perhaps someone to blame). Joke about corporate culture if you want, but often it's less stressful to blame a vendor than an employee or the internal culture. It may take 10 minutes to set up. Hours a month to maintain. Weeks to get permission to install it. Time to hire support sysadmin staff. Time to explain why kubernetes/simple vm/heroku/shiny new thing would make hosting it easier.
Why not github? Perhaps the person or org just likes open source. Distrusts Microsoft. Wants the option to self host as a bail out strategy. Or just dislikes github. Competition is great.
This argument applies to most open source apps with hosting options. I'm a fan of this model.
4