I'm in favor of GitHub alternatives in general. When we looked at what moving or mirroring our repos off of GitHub would look like since their uptime has been falling, the real bottleneck was all the dependencies that still live there. If (when) GH has an outage and we NEED to deploy, we would have to be mirroring all of those dependencies in an accessible way to get a deploy out. In that (sort of) hypothetical situation, the lowest-tech hot fix would be a manual code-edit across servers.
For me it's a trust gap. Because I know the website UI has been automatically generated, I can't be sure of how much of the product is actually real, or how closely the claims on the page have been audited.
Sure it is! Instantly feels like some subset of all those elements on the screen are not real or have not been properly tested. More often than not that's the case.
Curious how much of this is actually a new version-control model versus a much better abstraction over Git. The latter could still be valuable, but I'd love to see where the underlying primitives change.
While I'm excited for more entrants in this space. It's depressing that there's no way to measure how much effort was put in a piece of software.
The distrust I feel for "Show HN" posts is depressing.
I know this will sound absurd, but in the good old days, even the claim of having built something indicated quality. This hubris is not limited to the front page, I've experience new products from well establish companies that are horseshit because they vibe code without doing any real QA or UX polish.
The convergence of claim with product as opposed vaporware is toxic.
I get the same feeling, it's difficult to estimate if it's just a vibe-coded platform, or a carefully crafted project; if it's a one-man job that can crumble at any time, or a stable service powered by a motivated team. The comparison with other services is also not super honest, cherry-picking elements to put in bold (e.g. the higher price than GitLab that is highlighted, or the Agent access), when it has nothing to be ashamed of.
OP seems quite knowledgeable (e.g. https://ogirardot.writizzy.blog/p/rickub-1-8-faster-then-git...), and their company ARUKU has been established in 2011, which makes me a bit more confident in this platform. But there are no details about the team, the software, since how much time they're working on it, etc.
At the same time, if you just use public repositories and synchronize them somewhere else for backup, there's not much risk in testing it. There's a free tier, they do have some neat features (that they don't really advertise) if you come from GitHub, like an import process that can copy PRs and issues or good compatibility with Actions.
The UI definitely needs a bit of love. While it's quite similar to other forges (you're not lost in the interface), it feels a bit rough. And the scrollbar presence or absence pushing the whole page left or right really bothers me.
> The tools we host code on were designed for a different era — before AI wrote half the diff, before half our time went on reviews or waiting for CI, and before data sovereignty and protection was a concern.
yet another gitea/forgejo instance with some extra plumbing, hosted in the EU. this is a github alternative, not a git alternative. rickub's conflation of the two seems deliberate.
Don’t know about the backend, but site looks generated from aistudio.google.com or Gemini 3.8 flash.
I happened to be messing around with aistudio and site looks eerily similar.
https://luggage-packing-optimizer.ai.studio/
The explode slider only raises the height of two green boxes, it has the same energy as those impressive Chinese robots when they trip and fall.
I'm worried that I'm starting to find those glitches endearing.
Luggage Packing Optimizer? The nerdiness level is awesome and I'm here for all of it!
yep, I belong here on HN, haha!
I'm in favor of GitHub alternatives in general. When we looked at what moving or mirroring our repos off of GitHub would look like since their uptime has been falling, the real bottleneck was all the dependencies that still live there. If (when) GH has an outage and we NEED to deploy, we would have to be mirroring all of those dependencies in an accessible way to get a deploy out. In that (sort of) hypothetical situation, the lowest-tech hot fix would be a manual code-edit across servers.
I find these AI generated UXs so tiring to the eyes. Not sure if it's the ubiquity of them, the similarity or the excess of elements on the screen.
For me it's a trust gap. Because I know the website UI has been automatically generated, I can't be sure of how much of the product is actually real, or how closely the claims on the page have been audited.
Sure it is! Instantly feels like some subset of all those elements on the screen are not real or have not been properly tested. More often than not that's the case.
> "with no compromise on your data"
And yet it says there's an AI reviewer on every merge request and I don't see any documentation on whether that can be disabled.
it's disabled by default and only on MRs if you launch it
I'm not using proprietary git hosting again.
Forgejo/gitea are just so damn CVE ridden, and GitLab asks for 16G RAM as a minimum. All Rust-written forges have terrible web UI.
Curious how much of this is actually a new version-control model versus a much better abstraction over Git. The latter could still be valuable, but I'd love to see where the underlying primitives change.
While I'm excited for more entrants in this space. It's depressing that there's no way to measure how much effort was put in a piece of software.
The distrust I feel for "Show HN" posts is depressing.
I know this will sound absurd, but in the good old days, even the claim of having built something indicated quality. This hubris is not limited to the front page, I've experience new products from well establish companies that are horseshit because they vibe code without doing any real QA or UX polish.
The convergence of claim with product as opposed vaporware is toxic.
I get the same feeling, it's difficult to estimate if it's just a vibe-coded platform, or a carefully crafted project; if it's a one-man job that can crumble at any time, or a stable service powered by a motivated team. The comparison with other services is also not super honest, cherry-picking elements to put in bold (e.g. the higher price than GitLab that is highlighted, or the Agent access), when it has nothing to be ashamed of.
OP seems quite knowledgeable (e.g. https://ogirardot.writizzy.blog/p/rickub-1-8-faster-then-git...), and their company ARUKU has been established in 2011, which makes me a bit more confident in this platform. But there are no details about the team, the software, since how much time they're working on it, etc.
At the same time, if you just use public repositories and synchronize them somewhere else for backup, there's not much risk in testing it. There's a free tier, they do have some neat features (that they don't really advertise) if you come from GitHub, like an import process that can copy PRs and issues or good compatibility with Actions.
The UI definitely needs a bit of love. While it's quite similar to other forges (you're not lost in the interface), it feels a bit rough. And the scrollbar presence or absence pushing the whole page left or right really bothers me.
> The tools we host code on were designed for a different era — before AI wrote half the diff, before half our time went on reviews or waiting for CI, and before data sovereignty and protection was a concern.
Hello, slop. closes tab
Can’t tell if this is satire or just a vibe coded landing page. I really hope this is not a VC backed company.
it's not
Excellent, I always wanted forge to be down from litigation
yet another gitea/forgejo instance with some extra plumbing, hosted in the EU. this is a github alternative, not a git alternative. rickub's conflation of the two seems deliberate.
[dead]