328
After Xbox and Windows, now GITHUB is in crisis, "failing me, every single day, and it is personal"
(www.windowscentral.com)
this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2026
328 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
84222 readers
5754 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Github has not even one-nine of uptime. Normally you want three-nines or four-nines, they have ZERO-nines. A server in your basement is worlds more reliable.
Yeah, and the worst thing about this is that Github is critical infrastructure. If Github goes down the drain, so many devs and projects will be affected
I keep hearing about codeberg. Yet, when Claude CLI was leaked — I found the repo on some weird blockchain git repository with a message like “It’s here forever now…”
For OSS and personal projects, wouldn’t a blockchain solution actually be pretty good?
Edit: found it https://gitlawb.com/node/repos/z6MkgKkb/instructkr-claude-code
Not really. Blockchain technology has one use case and that is collaboration between partners who don't trust each other. So we're talking crypto coins, where not all nodes are really trustworthy and there is an incentive to cheat. But there's no reason to bring this tech to your Git repository because you really do not want untrustworthy participants in your code. Only you should have access to your Git rep, and then the easier solution is to host it yourself and use a normal database.
Maybe I am using the wrong technology for the right idea here, in my statement. What I’m really trying to get at is, wouldn’t we benefit greatly from having decentralized control over git hosting? Ideally then, The People decide what happens with it as a public resource — not a fickle technology company with competing interests and revolving management.
The solution should be immune to DMCA takedown requests, IMO.
Edit: I’ve never really thought about it… but decentralized hosting could seriously mess with IP laws, couldn’t it? Leaks can be done in a way that they cannot be undone.
Our company has had fits with GitHub the past month. It feels like every day something is busted.
Our company is also drinking the AI kook aid though and can’t see the forest for the trees.
We already went through this with SourceForge's enshittification back in the day, to the point that sometimes people called it "SourceForget". We'll survive the GitHub-pocalypse too, it will suck, but we'll be even better on the other side, at least until the next great centralization and enshittification.
The great thing about git is, that it is pretty decentralized in principle (everyone has a full copy of all source code and commits on their machines), so it is pretty easy to move your whole repository to an alternative git hoster, like Codeberg.
Except all the extra stuff like CI, issues, pull requests, discussions, pages, and probably some more things.
Forgejo has options to import some of that too, but it's not that easy. A modern repository isn't just files in git.