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.
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2026
34 points (92.5% liked)
Selfhosted
60664 readers
672 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:
-
Be civil.
-
No spam.
-
Posts are to be related to self-hosting.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.
-
Submission headline should match the article title.
-
No trolling.
-
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.
-
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:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
That's a good point ๐ฅฒ
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?
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.
I mean that really depends on how badly you want the job.
yeah but they won't fix it. They'll make a note that this candidate is difficult to work with and look for another.
They don't even have to "look". Just grab the next resume off the stack.
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.
Amen brother idk why you're down voted!! Good to know it's a shit company right away.
Gitea for me, never had an issue with it. Work's great!
i tried all three for my personal use. so i can't say much about collaboration aspects. anyway:
- gitlab is old, stable and solid. and it eats half of your servers resources.
- gitea and forgeji are for me equal in experience, which is makes sense, as one being a fork of the other. i haven't had any issues with anything, from setting up, using openid as auth method, to ssh passthrough.
- eventually i settled now on forgejo, simply for ideology reasons. it's heavily developed, so things might change. but they have this nice attitude to not release a latest tag for docker. so you can't accidentally update to a breaking change. had this issue with some other programs, which i spun up to quickly.
- looking forward to federation feature on forgejo!
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
- Readily accessible and fast options for the recruiter to access, even if your power is out / motherboard blows up / whatever.
- Demonstrates your familiarity with a world beyond github
- Demonstrates you can stand up your own local repo (if this is a thing they care about - if not don't bother with your own repo for just this)
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..
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 ๐คฆ).
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
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.
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.
Sure, but it's not part of Forgejo, is it?
Yes it is? Check the docs
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.
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.