cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/67880752
Hi, I want to self host a git service to display my work (electronics) for some recruiters. Which platform is the best? I’ve heard about Gitlab, Gitea and Forgejo. For me the fact that the platform doesn’t run some background analytics and does not sell my data is very important.
If it’s for recruiters, put it on github. That’s the one they are most probably familiar with and you want to minimize barriers to access.
Also seo, I’ve sadly seen 4 year abandoned random forks rank as the first result and the actual project way below, just because it was on a self-hosted git. iirc that was the freedesktop one, so definitely not small, new, or low volume either.
Yep… Our official website somehow often ranks below long abandoned forks on github pages?
Github is microslop, a company who supports a fascist regime. So no, worst choice.
If a corporate recruiter or technical recruiter can’t navigate a git forge that is not GitHub that is their failing not your problem to fix.
yeah but they won’t fix it. They’ll make a note that this candidate is difficult to work with and look for another.
Then you know the kind of environment the company fosters and do you want to work for an org that doesn’t have the decency to look at their applicants?
I don’t work for an org, I work for money.
Why should I self-sabotage my options, they might have a shit hiring process and still pay well.
That only works for people who are higher up in their field of work, since they can pick and choose who they work for
Most people going for junior/entry level roles don’t have that luxury
Amen brother idk why you’re down voted!! Good to know it’s a shit company right away.
They don’t even have to “look”. Just grab the next resume off the stack.
i tried all three for my personal use. so i can’t say much about collaboration aspects. anyway:
I’d say Forgejo as it is the most simple of the three. If you want more complexity (like CI/CD), then one of the other two. You can checkout Forgejo at codeberg.org.
Gitea is not fundamentally different than Forgejo, Forgejo is just a better fork of it. Better in terms of: more contributors, more users, dogfooding (Gitea is built on Github 🤦).
But yes, GitLab is like the Mac of Git forges: everything is included, doing everything their own way, vendor lock, very expensive. There is a community edition but serious users will run into its limitations and it does not integrate neatly with external solutions.
Forgejo is IMO the Linux of Git forges: low on resources, expandable, hackable, stable.
We should also keep in mind that Gitea was hostilely taken away from the community by a for-profit corporation that made Gitea open-core by hiding a way features behind a paywall in a cloud.
FUD
Gitea is still MIT licensed and the Enterprise tier features only cater to large org needs [1]. Why would I want to deal with nightmarish SAML config when OIDC does a better job
Forgejo was forked because the maintainers were butthurt they didn’t have more say in the development roadmap and their large PRs didn’t get reviewed and merged fast enough. Which is a valid reason to fork
FACT
The corporation basically stole the project from the community and started hiding features behind a paywall.
It is completely irrelevant if you need the features that are closed and behind a paywall and are not part of the open core.
There is a community edition but serious users will run into its limitations
No true Scot, then?
I’m running gitlab implementations at a few sites. I’ve not seen or heard of any performance limiter with a self-managed community edition that removes a tool the others still provide.
and it does not integrate neatly with external solutions.
Again, this sounds FUDdy. Which ‘external solutions’ are you using that a git-push fails on? Some spaghetti of saas tendrils seems to be already a risk, but I can’t think of any other external thing that it could mess up with.
GitLab doesn’t include everything, manu features are behind paywall.
Eh, there’s not really a better/worse between Gitea and ForgeJo. Gitea is targeting business customers, ForgeJo is targeting the open source community.
CI/CD works fine for selfhosted forgejo, I set mine up with minimal hassle.
Is the CI/CD still a faithful clone of github’s worst-in-show setup? Because if I had a plan for ditching GL, the CI keeps forgejo from being a contender.
I guess it depends on how you look at it - “It needs to be installed separately.”
You left out a part of the sentence;
Note that Forgejo does not run the jobs, it relies on the Forgejo Runner to do so. It needs to be installed separately.
And:
As of Forgejo v1.21, Actions is enabled by default.
So yeah. it depends on how you look at it. For me it means it’s part of Forgejo.
Github actions also needs a separate runner, github just provides some free ones for you. You can self-host a github actions runner as well.
Thanks for you reply, I did not know what CI/CD mean so just checked it, it’s not important for me because I want to display only finished project. Forgejo looks great and I just found it’s available as a TrueNas app which is great for me.
I’ve been running forgejo (and forgejo-runner for workflows) on TrueNAS for a little while now, without any issues really.
The runner image is also available as a TrueNAS app, so if you ever do want CI/CD it’s pretty simple to set up.
So I’m going to suggest something slightly different - put it on both github and codeberg, then note that its synced from your local repo as a mirror and link it in a readme.
Gives you a few things
As for the server itself I’d say forgejo personally.
i just put git repos in a dir on my server and use ssh to push/pull
if you need webui theres cgit.
i can say its not very user friendly tho…
If you don’t need issue tracker, wki, CI etc., cgit will be enough. If choose from gitlab, gitea and forgejo, use forgejo.
cgit always feels last century. Even with so-called “modern CSS” it’s just ancient.
