Comment by mcv
5 days ago
Weird thing is: I agree with both of you. Of course they can decide what to host and what not. And it's sad if that excludes me. But insulting small projects like that was uncalled-for.
5 days ago
Weird thing is: I agree with both of you. Of course they can decide what to host and what not. And it's sad if that excludes me. But insulting small projects like that was uncalled-for.
Did we read the same article?
> To us, it seems ridiculous to see projects with a single developer and virtually no users consuming as much or even more resources than some of the largest community projects on Codeberg, which operate frugal with CI/CD and storage resources. We do not believe it is reasonable for Codeberg to invest our precious donation money into hosting of large ghost projects.
This seems like a staggeringly reasonable take.
Had they limited CI/CD depending on the project "community" (whatever that means), that would be a reasonable take. Instead they ban something tangential to the discussion.
I can publish human slop and use loads of their resources without any LLM use.
I suspect they already did this a few times and then concluded, "you know what? This whole LLM thing is stupid. Why do we waste our time adjusting their resource limits when we could just remove the whole thing?"
Absolutely. I have no complaint with their actual change to the terms of service. I've had an account with them for years, and I stopped hosting new repos there a year or two ago, because I got mixed signals about precisely what kinds of projects they want to host. I don't need a host, plenty of fish in the sea. But I also think the world is better for having them in it and being hardened against enshittification, and I don't want to see them constantly struggling to stay up under assault from LLM crawlers. I wish them well.
I am constantly ill-choosing words I didn't mean, it's not such a big deal.