It’s a forgejo instance. I don’t know why they don’t just say that. Hopefully they actually implement federation so that their state and national instances can collaborate. That would be such a game changer. Microslop GitHub could then number it’s days.
It’s a forgejo instance. I don’t know why they don’t just say that.
They do say that. Has the article changed since you read it?
That’s why the Open Source Program Office (OSPO), a division within the Ministry of the Interior, has chosen to opt for Forgejo.
They don’t say it up front because it’s not too relevant to the article. The key fact is that the government is getting off of Github, not the technology they’re switching to, so that’s what goes in the headline.
They do say that. Has the article changed since you read it?
Looks like it did indeed change. I’m glad they now mention forgejo. They are doing terrific work and have evolved a lot since codeberg started using it.
And it is important what the government is doing. If they were writing it from scratch, that would have been a real pity. Luckily, that isn’t the case.
Huh? So we should never name things that aren’t well known? What kind of logic is that? And how is saying “we’re building on a forgejo instance” the same as “using the wrong thing”?
News headlines are usually worded in a way that’s accessible to most people, and then the article can go into detail about the topic. The other commenter said nothing about how products should or shouldn’t be named. By “the wrong thing”, they likely meant “things that the average person can recognize, but is not the best way to introduce the topic”.
People who haven’t heard of Forgejo will scroll past a headline that says “The German government has started a Forgejo instance”, even if they were interested in the topic. They could have also said “code repository”, but it’s not as eye catching as “GitHub”, a name and logo that a lot of people have seen before.
Also GitHub is the incumbent that is being replaced, and is relevant to the discussion
It’s a forgejo instance. I don’t know why they don’t just say that. Hopefully they actually implement federation so that their state and national instances can collaborate. That would be such a game changer. Microslop GitHub could then number it’s days.
They do say that. Has the article changed since you read it?
They don’t say it up front because it’s not too relevant to the article. The key fact is that the government is getting off of Github, not the technology they’re switching to, so that’s what goes in the headline.
Looks like it did indeed change. I’m glad they now mention forgejo. They are doing terrific work and have evolved a lot since codeberg started using it.
And it is important what the government is doing. If they were writing it from scratch, that would have been a real pity. Luckily, that isn’t the case.
Because a normal person knows GitHub but not Forgejo. So using the wrong thing they make an association in the person’s mind.
Huh? So we should never name things that aren’t well known? What kind of logic is that? And how is saying “we’re building on a forgejo instance” the same as “using the wrong thing”?
News headlines are usually worded in a way that’s accessible to most people, and then the article can go into detail about the topic. The other commenter said nothing about how products should or shouldn’t be named. By “the wrong thing”, they likely meant “things that the average person can recognize, but is not the best way to introduce the topic”.
People who haven’t heard of Forgejo will scroll past a headline that says “The German government has started a Forgejo instance”, even if they were interested in the topic. They could have also said “code repository”, but it’s not as eye catching as “GitHub”, a name and logo that a lot of people have seen before.
Also GitHub is the incumbent that is being replaced, and is relevant to the discussion