An update from GitHub: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/159123#discussioncomment-13148279
The rates are here: https://docs.github.com/en/rest/using-the-rest-api/rate-limits-for-the-rest-api?apiVersion=2022-11-28
- 60 req/hour for unauthenticated users
- 5000 req/hour for authenticated - personal
- 15000 req/hour for authenticated - enterprise org
No no, no no no no, no no no no, no no there’s no limit
Dude, this is cool!
It works really well too. I have an instance.
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.
Except Forgejo is open source and you can run your own instance of it. I do, and it’s great.
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.
- Create cool software for free
- Cool software gets popular
- Release new features and improve free software
- Lots of users use your cool software
- Running software becomes expensive, monetize
- Software becomes even more popular, single stream monetization no longer possible
- Monetize more
- Get more popular
- 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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
It just sounds like they didn’t understand the relationship between Forgejo and Codeberg. I didn’t either into I looked it up just now. IMHO their comment is best interpreted as being about Codeberg. People running their own instances of Forgejo are tangential to the topic at hand.
Either way, their comment is out of place. A Codeberg comment when the original comment was pointing people to Forgejo.
No, no limits, we’ll reach for the skyyyy
Amazon’s AI crawler is making my git server unstable
End of the day someone still has to pay for those requests
Good thing I moved all my repos from git[lab|hub] to Codeberg recently.
60 req/hour for unauthenticated users
That’s low enough that it may cause problems for a lot of infrastructure. Like, I’m pretty sure that the MELPA emacs package repository builds out of git, and a lot of that is on github.
That’s low enough that it may cause problems for a lot of infrastructure.
Likely the point. If you need more, get an API key.
Or just make authenticated requests. I’d expect that to be well within with capabilities of anyone using MELPA, and 5000 requests per hour shouldn’t pose any difficulty considering MELPA only has about 6000 total packages.
This is my opinion on it, too. Everyone is crying about the death of Github when they’re just cutting back on unauthenticated requests to curb abuse… lol seems pretty standard practice to me.
I didn’t think of that - also for nvim you typically pull plugins from git repositories
Do you think any infrastructure is pulling that often while unauthenticated? It seems like an easy fix either way (in my admittedly non devops opinion)
It’s gonna be problematic in particular for organisations with larger offices. If you’ve got hundreds of devs/sysadmins under the same public IP address, those 60 requests/hour are shared between them.
Basically, I expect unauthenticated pulls to not anymore be possible at my day job, which means repos hosted on GitHub become a pain.
Quite frankly, companies shouldn’t be pulling Willy nilly from github or npm, etc anyway. It’s trivial to set up something to cache repos or artifacts, etc. Plus it guards against being down when github is down, etc.
It’s easy to set up a cache, but what’s hard is convincing your devs to use it.
Mainly because, well, it generally works without configuring the cache in your build pipeline, as you’ll almost always need some solution for accessing the internet anyways.
But there’s other reasons, too. You need authentication or a VPN for accessing a cache like that. Authentications means you have to deal with credentials, which is a pain. VPN means it’s likely slower than downloading directly from the internet, at least while you’re working from home.
Well, and it’s also just yet another moving part in your build pipeline. If that cache is ever down or broken or inaccessible from certain build infrastructure, chances are it will get removed from affected build pipelines and those devs are unlikely to come back.
Having said that, of course, GitHub is promoting caches quite heavily here. This might make it actually worth using for the individual devs.
Same problem for CGNAT users
Ah yeah that’s right, I didn’t consider large offices. I can definitely see how that’d be a problem
If I’m using Ansible or something to pull images it might get that high.
Of course the fix is to pull it once and copy the files over, but I could see this breaking prod for folks who didn’t write it that way in the first place
The numbers actually seem reasonable…
…
60 requests
Per hour
How is that reasonable??
You can hit the limits by just browsing GitHub for 15 minutes.
Without login
Not at all if you’re a software developer, which is the whole point of the service. Automated requests from their own tools can easily punch through this building a large project even one time.
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?
I hit those many times when signed out just scrolling through the code. The front end must be sending off tonnes of background requests
This doesn’t include any requests from the website itself
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.
60 requests per hour per IP could easily be hit from say, uBlock origin updating filter lists in a household with 5-10 devices.
This is specific to the GH REST API I think, not operations like doing a git clone to copy a repo to local machine, etc.
These changes will apply to operations like cloning repositories over HTTPS, anonymously interacting with our REST APIs, and downloading files from raw.githubusercontent.com.
downloading files from raw.githubusercontent.com
oh fuck, this is going to break stuff.
These changes will apply to operations like cloning repositories over HTTPS, anonymously interacting with our REST APIs, and downloading files from raw.githubusercontent.com.
Just browsing GitHub I’ve got this limit
Then login.
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.
Just browse authenticated, you won’t have that issue.
that is not an acceptable ‘solution’ and opens up an entirely different and more significant can o’ worms instead.
If Microsoft knows how to do one thing well, it’s killing a successful product.
I came here looking for this comment. They bought the service to destroy it. It’s kind of their thing.
Github has literally never been doing better. What are you talking about??
We are talking about EEE
What has Microsoft extinguished lately? I’m not a fan of Microsoft, but I think EEE is a silly thing to reference because it’s a strategy that worked for a little while in the 90s that Microsoft gave up on a long time ago because it doesn’t work anymore.
Like, what would be the purpose of them buying GitHub just to destroy it? And if that was their goal, why haven’t they done it already? Microsoft is interested in one thing: making money. They’ll do evil things to make money, just like any other big corporation, but they don’t do evil things just for the sake of being evil. It’s very much in their business interest to be seen as trustworthy, and being overly evil runs counter to that need.
RIP Skype
we could have had bob or clippy instead of ‘cortana’ or ‘copilot’
Microsoft really should have just leaned into it and named it Clippy again.
It was never named Clippy 😉
Codeberg has used way stricter rate limiting since pretty much forever. Nice thought, but Codeberg will not solve this problem, like at all.
What? I have never seen a rate limiting screen on codeberg. Ever. If I click too much on github I get rate limited. It happens so frequently, I use https://sourcegraph.com/search when I have to navigate a repository’s code.
The enshittification begins (continues?)…
just now? :)
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).
They make you sign in to use search, on code anyways.
Which i hate so much anytime i want to quickly look for something
THIS is why I clone all my commonly used Repos to my personal gitea instance.
That’s actually kind of an interesting idea.
Is there a reasonable way that I could host my own ui that will keep various repos. I care about cloned and always up to date automatically?
Afict, you should be able to follow the instructions for migrating the repo and it will clone it to your instance and track for updates. It’s been a minute since I’ve read up on it though
I recently switched my instance from gitea to forgejo because everyone said to do it and it was easy to do.
What were the benefits
Mostly people stopped telling them to do it, I guess 🤷♂️
Maybe charge OpenAI for scrapes instead of screwing over your actual customers.
Good thing git is “federated” by default.
& then you have fossil which is github in a box
RIP yocto builds
