GitHub Actions started “vibe-scheduling”
Best description of GitHub Actions in the year 2025.
I welcome the move away from GH, but I really hope that Codeberg just suffers from a temporary HN hug of death, because ziglang/zig: General-purpose programming language and toolchain for maintaining robust, optimal, and reusable software. - Codeberg.org currently takes half a minute to load for me 
Out of interest, why not Gitlab? We use that at work and it seems to me like the most professional GH alternative (especially the CI system is leaps and bounds better than GH Actions).
PS: and just as I wrote it now suddenly the page is loading within a second, how very weird…
My impression is that nowadays if you want to use a platform for a long period of time you have to aim for something non-profit because otherwise in 5 years on average your platform will have either:
- died
- sold out to Oracle and got shut down / absorbed in another product
- began enshittifying
GitLab is a startup, codeberg is a non-profit.
gitlab is very bad for Chinese users. They do not provide services to users in Chinese mainland, Hong Kong and Macao, and ban their accounts, forcing users to migrate.
Yeah good point… even without potential future enshittification, at least the different Gitlab tiers are also extremely confusing (free vs premium vs ultimate), and I might have a slightly distorted PoV because our company uses the Premium tier.
Tbh when I spent a couple of months in China around 2018 I was very surprised that the ‘opposite’ works (e.g. the Party allowing to access Github through the Great Firewall - although I guess the company I worked at used a ‘state-sanctioned’ VPN tunnel).
In fact, the wall from the Chinese authorities is basically not a problem for programmers XD. The problem usually comes from the service provider’s active ban on users from the Chinese mainland.
I have a project on Codeberg, but it’s true that the exploration system lags far behind GitHub. The git is the same, but there is less visibility on Codeberg. I understand that it’s still very new, but if it doesn’t evolve, I can only see a niche future for it.
The only advantage is that it’s free and open-source.
Two additional advantages are being non-profit, and willing to improve.
The git is the same, but there is less visibility on Codeberg
I really can’t imagine that the fact that Zig was on Github instead of any other Git forge increased Zig’s visibility in any way. I’d even say that the social-media-style ‘news feed’ on the Github homepage was the exact moment in time when Github started to turn into shit
Codeberg even lets you sign in with your Github account, so the entrance barrier is pretty much non-existent.
I don’t think GitHub helps discoverability in any meaningful way. I have a developed and maintained a decent quality library for java/JVM that’s compatible with SLF4J and, when I could monitor traffic on GitHub (which is a feature that’s been broken for months) I was getting more traffic from very old Reddit posts or SLF4J’s website than GitHub. Unfortunately, open source in general lacks a good place for discovering, supporting and funding open work, which isn’t necessarily the same platform that hosts the code btw.
?? They already helped us out with a bunch of stuff, and @mlugg is making a contribution to improve Forgejo that will help us and everyone else out too.
This is why FOSS is great!
At the risk of stirring a political discussion, I’d like to offer a different perspective on the closing statement, trying my best to express it in a cordial and respectful tone.
I completely agree with the move out of GitHub, I’m an enthusiast of open source, I have a long track record of disagreeing with and distancing from Microsoft and I’m against corporatism.
Having that said, I think blaming “capitalism” is a troublesome thing. First because people have different definitions of capitalism, as some define it as capital accumulation, others define it as free markets, others simply as non-socialism. Then, given the mixed interpretation people may have of the concept, it might instill diverse reactions in the audience, some of which causing newcomers to distance themselves from the language.
I’m coming from a position of getting tired of political divide and polarization tearing society apart and weakening the foundations of trust and collaboration of our society. I’ve seen it happen first hand.
Zig is a welcoming community, by far the best one I’ve been part of. I can see how welcoming and respectful people here are. The closing remark might cause people to think otherwise.
I don’t want to silence anyone, I believe strongly in free speech. My questioning is only if it’s strategically sound to position oneself politically here. I just want to preserve the good thing we have here.
Are you talking about this statement?
In this modern era of acquisitions, weak antitrust regulations, and platform capitalism leading to extreme concentrations of wealth, non-profits remain a bastion defending what remains of the commons.
It doesn’t say “capitalism”, it says “platform capitalism”. In other words, Facebook, Uber, GrubHub, Amazon Marketplace, Netflix, GitHub, Google, Steam, etc. Tech companies that act as a middle man, connecting two third parties to each other and then scraping profit off the top.
I think all these should be not-for-profit. I think we will all agree about this someday after we’ve all been burned a sufficient amount of times.
For the record, I think that free markets are a really nice decentralization tool, and that a centrally planned economy is bad, well, because it is centralized. Centralization leads to corruption and unstable power dynamics.
Yes, and I agree that they’re all at the very best just evil companies. The point is that this very statement can come across differently. As a non-native English speaker, I might be missing an obvious nuance here, but I’d assume “platform capitalism” builds on the loose definition of “capitalism”.
I’m with you both in reasoning and in conclusion. My concern is that messages like this can drive people away when their political lens can lead them to a different conclusion.
I’ll grant that I might be overreacting since I’ve seen too many good things fade because of politics. This isn’t about politics and Zig is making the right decision migrating out of GitHub.
I’ll say this in agreement with you: I am also tired of the political divide and the separate news bubbles. We need to get people talking to each other again.
And the language that I used in that post exacerbated the problem, rather than helping it. So I think I fucked up from that perspective. To the extent which that harms the Zig community, I apologize.
Maybe I should be a little more professional in these sort of comms. Maybe. I do think that MS needs to be called out on their bullshit, including employees, who absolutely do have the power to walk out the door and get a different job, or to unionize, or idk fucking figure something out.
Because you would practically need to selfhost it.
If you want to create an account on the “official” GitLab instance, you currently need to give them your credit card information because a few years back people abused their CI for crypto mining and they decided that this is how they want to combat that.
I don’t have a credit and I don’t want one (and if I would have one, I wouldn’t want to give that to GitLab either). And I know a lot of people for those this goes too. So you would effectively exclude a lot of people from even creating bug reports.
I understand that you (@andrewrk) have received a lot of feedback already. I hope the following is more valuable than noise.
On the positive side:
- I am happy with the decision to move to Codeberg. Github has grown more difficult to use and I think moving off aligns with the ZSF’s mission statement of “to promote, protect, and advance the Zig programming language”. It specfically promotes the ZSF’s independence from big corp.
In my ideal world, as a zig community member:
-
the article should emphasize more on the positive outcomes of this decision, and less on the shortcomings of GitHub. For example, by saying “we look forward to supporting and collaborating with a fellow non-profit with better aligned incentives”. The article makes almost no mentions of the positive characteristics of Codeberg and is almost exclusively a list of Github complaints. At the end of the article, I am left thinking “yes, github has been on a downward trajectory, what do I have to look forward to thanks to this decision”?
-
the article should better target an audience of the zig community. the audience of article seems nebulously directed at larger corperations and github users. You are the ZSF, speak to the Zig community, your users, and your supporters. The article should reassure users of potential risks. For example, by mentioning the responsiveness of the Codeberg maintainers, and your confidence in their technical ability to maintain this hosting platform. You might also mention that Codeberg has a similar workflow to Github. Mentioning these things would make the article perhaps more boring to outsiders, but more reassuring to insiders.
-
if the article is supposed to be a 3D-chess-move, where controversy / intense rhetoric is supposed to breed new users and get more attention, well perhaps you have succeeded, and the article is not intended for me, a zig user