<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>jraph</author><text>What if your goal is not being successful in term of absolute number of users no matter what but instead to promote something?&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s fortunate that sometimes people refuse to build big tents and instead push for a better world.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; They need to understand that contributions and use are driven by utility and convenience and economics, not morality&lt;p&gt;You are wrong. GNU&amp;#x27;s whole existence is for moral reasons, and their tools are pervasive and you &amp;quot;typically&amp;quot; depend on them. It might not be everybody, even most people, but it&amp;#x27;s still a thing.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; I frankly do not care about the ethos of FOSS enough&lt;p&gt;You need to understand that some people do, and will promote it.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; I don&amp;#x27;t want to learn a different UI for contributing to FOSS&lt;p&gt;And I don&amp;#x27;t like to have to use proprietary software to contribute to FOSS [1].
How do we do? Do we please you and go for GitHub, or do we work towards this goal?&lt;p&gt;I personally won&amp;#x27;t optimize for convenience no matter what. Convenience is killing our planet. We actually need to take our fingers out to make the world work. We can&amp;#x27;t live forever effortless. This is the pragmatic path, actually. I&amp;#x27;m not arguing against convenience, I&amp;#x27;m the first to like it, but things have various aspects worth taking in account, convenience only being one of them.&lt;p&gt;Not that I don&amp;#x27;t find Forgejo not convenient. Pretty much the opposite. I like its UX.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;drewdevault.com&amp;#x2F;2022&amp;#x2F;03&amp;#x2F;29&amp;#x2F;free-software-free-infrastructure.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;drewdevault.com&amp;#x2F;2022&amp;#x2F;03&amp;#x2F;29&amp;#x2F;free-software-free-infras...&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>allioeddie</author><text>This sort of myopic, self-important, holier-than-thou perspective is why the open source community is so rarely successful in anything it tries to do for itself.  Whatever you think Github&amp;#x27;s most known or most useful featureset is, the fact of the matter is it dominates because they don&amp;#x27;t draw philosophical lines in the sand and exclude people as a result.  It&amp;#x27;s a big tent, all are welcome, and as a result, it has near universal coverage in the industry, so there&amp;#x27;s no burden to ask users to sign up or familiarize themselves with the platform in order to contribute.  Everyone already has a GH account, and a lot of the driver of that is the private repositories that they host for business.  Of the people I&amp;#x27;ve worked with, fewer than 10% of them have ever made a single FOSS contribution, but they all have Github accounts.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t want to learn a different UI for contributing to FOSS than the one I use for my daily work.  I frankly do not care about the ethos of FOSS enough, neither do almost any developers, relative to the field, however overrepresented FOSS awareness is on HackerNews.  I contribute back to open source when it&amp;#x27;s convenient - and not too expensive - to do so; making it _less_ convenient so the host can draw an arbitrary philosophical line in the sand is going to serve no purpose but to decrease contributions.&lt;p&gt;FOSS maintainers need to understand that the FOSS ethical and philosophical perspective is not universal - it is, in fact, quite rare in the industry.  They need to understand that contributions and use are driven by utility and convenience and economics, not morality.  Sacrificing anything utility-wise or convenience-wise for philosophy is just shooting themselves in the foot.</text></item><item><author>commoner</author><text>Services don&amp;#x27;t need to handle every single use case to be viable alternatives. GitHub does host proprietary software, but it is most well known for being a place to collaborate on free and open source software. Codeberg addresses this primary use case in a more focused way than GitHub intends to, and because of this, Codeberg is an excellent alternative to GitHub.</text></item><item><author>Entinel</author><text>&amp;gt; Our mission is to support the creation and development of Free Software; therefore we only allow repos licensed under an OSI&amp;#x2F;FSF-approved license. For more details see Licensing article. However, we sometimes tolerate repositories that aren&amp;#x27;t perfectly licensed and focus on spreading awareness on the topic of improper FLOSS licensing and its issues.&lt;p&gt;If you aren&amp;#x27;t doing FOSS software and aren&amp;#x27;t &amp;quot;tolerated&amp;quot; you aren&amp;#x27;t allowed here. This is not an alternative to Github.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Codeberg – Fast open source alternative to GitHub</title><url>https://codeberg.org/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>commoner</author><text>&amp;gt; I don&amp;#x27;t want to learn a different UI for contributing to FOSS than the one I use for my daily work.&lt;p&gt;Codeberg is an instance of the FOSS forge platform Forgejo, which is a fork of Gitea. As FOSS projects, Forgejo and Gitea can be used to host any kind of software, proprietary or open source, without restriction. It is entirely possible for a person to use Forgejo&amp;#x2F;Gitea to contribute to both work projects and off-work projects, even if the work projects are proprietary.&lt;p&gt;If your employer chooses to use GitHub instead of Forgejo&amp;#x2F;Gitea, nobody else is obligated to stick with GitHub to make it more convenient for you to contribute. FOSS projects may choose Codeberg for its other advantages, such as its superior privacy policy and the fact that Codeberg does not automatically resell content from its hosted repositories as a proprietary service (like GitHub does with Copilot).</text><parent_chain><item><author>allioeddie</author><text>This sort of myopic, self-important, holier-than-thou perspective is why the open source community is so rarely successful in anything it tries to do for itself.  Whatever you think Github&amp;#x27;s most known or most useful featureset is, the fact of the matter is it dominates because they don&amp;#x27;t draw philosophical lines in the sand and exclude people as a result.  It&amp;#x27;s a big tent, all are welcome, and as a result, it has near universal coverage in the industry, so there&amp;#x27;s no burden to ask users to sign up or familiarize themselves with the platform in order to contribute.  Everyone already has a GH account, and a lot of the driver of that is the private repositories that they host for business.  Of the people I&amp;#x27;ve worked with, fewer than 10% of them have ever made a single FOSS contribution, but they all have Github accounts.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t want to learn a different UI for contributing to FOSS than the one I use for my daily work.  I frankly do not care about the ethos of FOSS enough, neither do almost any developers, relative to the field, however overrepresented FOSS awareness is on HackerNews.  I contribute back to open source when it&amp;#x27;s convenient - and not too expensive - to do so; making it _less_ convenient so the host can draw an arbitrary philosophical line in the sand is going to serve no purpose but to decrease contributions.&lt;p&gt;FOSS maintainers need to understand that the FOSS ethical and philosophical perspective is not universal - it is, in fact, quite rare in the industry.  They need to understand that contributions and use are driven by utility and convenience and economics, not morality.  Sacrificing anything utility-wise or convenience-wise for philosophy is just shooting themselves in the foot.</text></item><item><author>commoner</author><text>Services don&amp;#x27;t need to handle every single use case to be viable alternatives. GitHub does host proprietary software, but it is most well known for being a place to collaborate on free and open source software. Codeberg addresses this primary use case in a more focused way than GitHub intends to, and because of this, Codeberg is an excellent alternative to GitHub.</text></item><item><author>Entinel</author><text>&amp;gt; Our mission is to support the creation and development of Free Software; therefore we only allow repos licensed under an OSI&amp;#x2F;FSF-approved license. For more details see Licensing article. However, we sometimes tolerate repositories that aren&amp;#x27;t perfectly licensed and focus on spreading awareness on the topic of improper FLOSS licensing and its issues.&lt;p&gt;If you aren&amp;#x27;t doing FOSS software and aren&amp;#x27;t &amp;quot;tolerated&amp;quot; you aren&amp;#x27;t allowed here. This is not an alternative to Github.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Codeberg – Fast open source alternative to GitHub</title><url>https://codeberg.org/</url></story>