• Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    I honestly don’t really see the problem here. This seems to mostly be targeting scrapers.

    For unauthenticated users you are limited to public data only and 60 requests per hour, or 30k if you’re using Git LFS. And for authenticated users it’s 60k/hr.

    What could you possibly be doing besides scraping that would hit those limits?

    • chaospatterns@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      You might behind a shared IP with NAT or CG-NAT that shares that limit with others, or might be fetching files from raw.githubusercontent.com as part of an update system that doesn’t have access to browser credentials, or Git cloning over https:// to avoid having to unlock your SSH key every time, or cloning a Git repo with submodules that separately issue requests. An hour is a long time. Imagine if you let uBlock Origin update filter lists, then you git clone something with a few modules, and so does your coworker and now you’re blocked for an entire hour.

    • MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 days ago

      60 requests per hour per IP could easily be hit from say, uBlock origin updating filter lists in a household with 5-10 devices.

    • Disregard3145@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      I hit those many times when signed out just scrolling through the code. The front end must be sending off tonnes of background requests

  • onlinepersona@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 days ago

    I see the “just create an account” and “just login” crowd have joined the discussion. Some people will defend a monopolist no matter what. If github introduced ID checks à la Google or required a Microsoft account to login, they’d just shrug and go “create a Microsoft account then, stop bitching”. They don’t realise they are being boiled and don’t care. Consoomer behaviour.

    Anti Commercial-AI license

    • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      Or we just realize that GitHub without logging in is a service we are getting for free. And when there’s something free, there’s someone trying to exploit it. Using GitHub while logged in is also free and has none of these limits, while allowing them to much easier block exploiters.

      • onlinepersona@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        I would like to remind you that you are arguing for a monopolist. I’d agree with you if it were for a startup or mid-sized company that had lots of competition and was providing a good product being abused by competitors or users. But Github has a quasi-monopoly, is owned by a monopolist that is part of the reason other websites are being bombarded by requests (aka, they are part of the problem), and you are sitting here arguing that more people should join the monopoly because of an issue they created.

        Can you see the flaws in reasoning in your statements?

        Anti Commercial-AI license

        • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          No. I cannot find the flaws in my reasoning. Because you are not attacking my reasoning, you are saying that i am on the side of the bad people, and the bad people are bad, and you are opposed to the bad people, therefore you are right.

          The world is more than black or white. GitHub rate-limiting non-logged-in users makes sense, and is the expected result in the age of web scrapping LLM training.

          Yes, the parent company of GitHub also does web scrapped for the purpose of training LLMs. I don’t see what that has to do with defending themselves from other scrappers.

          • onlinepersona@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            Company creates problem. Requires users to change because of created problem. You defend company creating problem.

            That’s the logical flaw.

            If you see no flaws in defending a monopolist, well, you cannot be helped then.

            Anti Commercial-AI license

            • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 days ago

              I don’t think Microsoft invented scrapping. Or LLM training.

              Also, GitHub doesn’t have an issue with Microsoft scraping its data. They can just directly access whatever data they want. And rate-limiting non logged in accounts won’t affect Microsoft’s LLM training at all.

              I’m not defending a monopolist because of monopolist actions. First of all because GitHub doesn’t have any kind of monopoly. There are plenty of git forges. And second of all. How does this make their position on the market stronger? If anything, it makes it weaker.

    • Xanza@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 days ago

      Until there will be.

      I think people are grossly underestimating the sheer size and significance of the issue at hand. Forgejo will very likely eventually get to the same point Github is at right now, and will have to employ some of the same safeguards.

        • Xanza@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 days ago

          That’s a very accurate statement which has absolutely nothing to do with what I’ve said. Fact of the matter stands, is that those who generally seek to use a Github alternative do so because they dislike Microsoft or closed source platforms. Which is great, but those platforms with hosted instances see an overwhelmingly significant portion of users who visit because they choose not to selfhost. It’s a lifecycle.

          1. Create cool software for free
          2. Cool software gets popular
          3. Release new features and improve free software
          4. Lots of users use your cool software
          5. Running software becomes expensive, monetize
          6. Software becomes even more popular, single stream monetization no longer possible
          7. Monetize more
          8. Get more popular
          9. Monetize more

          By step 30 you’re selling everyone’s data and pushing resource restrictions because it’s expensive to run a popular service that’s generally free. That doesn’t change simply because people can selfhost if they want.

          • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 days ago

            To me, this reads strongly like someone who is confidently incorrect. Your starting premise is incorrect. You are claiming Forgejo will do this. Forgejo is nothing but an open source project designed to self host. If you were making this claim about Codeberg, the project’s hosted version, then your starting premise would be correct. Obviously, they monetize Codeberg because they’re providing a service. That monetization feeds Forgejo development. They could also sell official support for people hosting their own instances of Forgejo. This is a very common thing that open source companies do…

            • Xanza@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 days ago

              Obviously, they monetize Codeberg because they’re providing a service. That monetization feeds Forgejo development. They could also sell official support for people hosting their own instances of Forgejo. This is a very common thing that open source companies do…

              This is literally what I said in my original post. Free products must monetize, as they get larger they have to continue to monetize more and more because development and infrastructure costs continue to climb…and you budged in as if this somehow doesn’t apply to Forgejo and then literally listed examples of why it does. I mean, Jesus my guy.

              You are claiming Forgejo will do this.

              I’m claiming that it is a virtual certainty of the age of technology that we live in that popular free products (like Github) eventually balloon into sizes which are unmanageable while maintaining a completely free model (especially without restriction), which then proceed to get even more popular at which time they have to find new revenue streams or die.

              It’s what’s happened with Microsoft, Apple, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Amazon Prime Video, Discord, Reddit, Emby, MongoDB, just about any CMS CRM or forum software, and is currently happening to Plex, I mean the list is quite literally endless. You could list any large software company that provides a free or mostly free product and you’ll find a commercial product that they use to fund future development because their products become so popular and so difficult/costly to maintain they were forced into a monetization model to continue development.

              Why you think Forgejo is the only exception to this natural evolution is beyond my understanding.

              I’m fully aware of the difference between Codeberg and Forgejo. And Forgejo is a product and its exceptionally costly to build and maintain. Costs which will continue to rise as it has to change over time to suit more and more user needs. People seem to heavily imply that free products cost nothing to build, which is just insane.

              I’ve been a FOSS developer for 25 years and a tech PM for almost 20. I speak with a little bit of authority here because it’s my literal wheelhouse.

              • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 days ago

                That’s a huge wall of text to still entirely miss the point. Forgejo is NOT a free service. It is an open-source project that you can host yourself. Do you know what will happen if Forgejo ends up enshitifying? They’ll get forked. Why do I expect that? Because that’s literally how Forgejo was created. It forked Gitea. Why don’t I think that will happen any time soon? It has massive community buy-in, including the Fedora Project. You being a PM explains a lot about being confidently incorrect.

                • Xanza@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  That’s a huge wall of text to still entirely miss the point.

                  So then it makes sense that you didn’t read it where I very specifically and intentionally touch the subjects you speak about.

                  If you’re not going to read what people reply, then don’t even bother throwing your opinion around. Just makes you look like an idiot tbh.

  • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    LOL!!! RIP GitHub

    EDIT: trying to compile any projects from source that use git submodules will be interesting. eg ROCm has more than 60 submodules to pull in 💀

  • John Richard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 days ago

    Crazy how many people think this is okay, yet left Reddit cause of their API shenanigans. GitHub is already halfway to requiring signing in to view anything like Twitter (X).

    • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      It’s not the same making API costs unbearable for a social media user and limiting the rate non-logged-in users.

      You can still use GitHub without being logged in. You can still use GitHub without almost any limit on a free account.

      You cannot even use reddit on a third party app with an account with reddit gold.

    • adarza@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      i’ve hit it many times so far… even as quick as the second page view (first internal link clicked) after more than a day or two since the last visit (yes, even with cleaned browser data or private window).

      it’s fucking stupid how quick they are to throw up a roadblock.

      • adarza@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 days ago

        that is not an acceptable ‘solution’ and opens up an entirely different and more significant can o’ worms instead.

  • varnia@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    8 days ago

    Good thing I moved all my repos from git[lab|hub] to Codeberg recently.

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 days ago

    is authenticated like when you use a private key with git clone? stupid question i know

    also this might be terrible if you subscribe to filter lists on raw github in ublock or adguard

    • chaospatterns@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      9 days ago

      is authenticated like when you use a private key with git clone

      Yes

      also this might be terrible if you subscribe to filter lists on raw github in ublock or adguard

      Yes exactly why this is actually quite problematic. There’s a lot of HTTPS Git pull remotes around and random software that uses raw.githubusercontent.com to fetch data. All of that is now subject to the 60 req/hr limit and not all of it will be easy to fix.