this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2026
96 points (84.3% liked)

Selfhosted

61003 readers
510 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.

  8. AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Right - I see the other topic has been locked / author hasn't returned to follow community rules.

Here's the original topic https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386

and a measured (IMHO) response to it. (BTW, do your self a favour and change tabs with that site open :)

https://xn--gckvb8fzb.com/i-regret-migrating-to-codeberg/

It's a tough spot, Codeberg has found themselves in and I wish them luck. But beyond that, this is (yet) another reminder that in 2026, if you don't self host it, the cloud is just someone else computer

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] RedstoneValley@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The problem for me was the decision process and the piss poor way it was communicated, plain and simple. I'm absolutely fine with the decision in itself, it's their platform and they can do that if they feel like it.

But instead of voting on an single agenda point about a small TOS change in a closed members meeting and dealing with the consequences later, I would have appreciated open communication and discussion on that topic not only among the members but also the user base before making such blanket decisions. As far as I heard there wasn't even a real discussion among the members, it was just a vote on a TOS change, which was introduced and advertised by a member shortly before the meeting took place. I could be wrong on the last point, but these kinds of salami tactics or "Vereinsmeierei" in an association would make Codeberg an unreliable platform for hosting a project.

Like someone else in here has said, this time it was banning Crypto and LLMs, next time it could be Ruby on Rails (because of their ties to the racist entrepreneur DHH) or whatever TOS change makes it through their members-only voting process. Again, that's fine for Codeberg but it's not a good place for any non-member to host a project.

[โ€“] rako@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 1 points 11 hours ago

I see your point and I think I agree. Maybe I'm willing to let it pass because I happen to agree with the decision (and would also agree with the hypothetical ban of Rails). Ultimately, it comes down to what you said: whatever you use, you should see how to become a full member