You right. It's slow and unoptimized for it. There is a clear reason this isn't a popular approach.

In the messaging app, I started off by making it so it worked with local-only data. It works over webrtc. I added bells and whistles like the signal protocol and multimedia messaging, but it lacks the ability to send messages offline (because webrtc).

The git approach can allow to publish encrypted messages for peers so when they come and online and your aren't there, it can decrypt a payload specific to them.

With git, it's hardly instant messaging, but I'm working on a feature where git can act as a peer-broker to establish a webrtc connection.

The git approach also would mean that it could work over tor with the signal protocol encryption (albeit hardly instant messaging).

It's a fairly unique approach and there are countless details to consider like how group-messaging would work. So I'll confirm it isn't ready to replace signal or any other app/service.

"Vibecoded" doesn't quite have the bite these days. I've clearly used AI, so let's get that out of the way. In my open source projects I tried to provide code, documentation, live examples. You can find out more about the open source projects at: https://positive-intentions.com/

Feel free to reach out for specifics. While this project is not open source (yet?), I am still trying to make some comprehensive docs.

"git as a backend" doesnt make sense at all. you didnt answer why this is a better option than signal. it sounds vibe coded.

i was unable to get traction on my project as FOSS. in fact, it only seems to put me at a competative disadvantage.

https://www.reddit.com/r/positive_intentions/comments/1tq1u62/introducing_enkrypted_chat

i sweated to get the project to that point. the key pushback was that it didnt have an audit. cybersecurity has a paywall nobody seems to talk about. a security audit that is worth respecting is prohibitively expensive. as someone feeling the hit of AI (im unemployed), im especially not investigating options for a security audit when i cant pay myself.

it isnt for lack of trying either i have countless rejections from providers of funding for open source projects. i have several open source examples if youre really curious to discuss details.

If the project was FOSS, it would have been interesting to follow the development and learn from it. But it being proprietary, I don't see why anybody would be interested in it, TBH.

Could be a comment indeed. It's hard, or even impossible, to clearly decide where to put an information. There are some guidelines, but no absolute rules. Commit messages, comments, API docs, tickets, wikis, etc... all of them serve different purpose.

• Comments are here to explain an implementation detail when code cannot be self-explanatory. They live as long as the code live (and are unfortunately not always updated). They are used when a developer arrives on that line of code.

• Commit message are here to explain why something has been added/removed. What happen before, what happen after, why this solution was needed. They are tightly couple to the diff and generally don't contain generic high-level information (unless commit is a design or architectural modification). They are used by the reviewer and 5 years later by someone that do a git blame to understand why this line was introduced and what happen if I remove it.

• API Docs explain the behavior of an API, as seen from the outside. They should not explain the implementation, nor explain in which case and which part of the system they are used.

• Tickets explain a user request. They detail who request this and for what purpose, but only from user point of view. No implementation detail.

• Wikis are here to cover your ass so you can say "See, it was written in the wiki !"

Why a commit message and not a comment for that?

I’ve helped people with Fork before, in so much as I helped them do relatively simple things in the Git CLI that were buried in an unknown menu in Fork.

I think it’s really cool that we gave more consistent - arguably more intuitive - interfaces to interact with Git, including in IDEs, but there’s something to be said for the consistent and unambiguous nature of the command line.

So even if this can actually be easier in some specific tool, I find it’s useful to have an idea of how to do this the old way too.

I'd rather use Fork than deal with git's terrible UI.

It's free in the same sense as sublime text (you're free to "evaluate" it with all features for free as long as you want, then pay when you want).

But it's only macos and windows.

This looks incredibly useful!

I'm really sad that after 20 year we still have to explain that commit message is not a summary of code modification.

Commit message is here to gives information's that are not visible in the diff. The context, the side effects, the decision that were made, etc... All of this cannot be generated by LLM.

I guess our company is doing something right because it’s been nice to see all the AI PRs that have details about the why in them rather than just commits with “fixed bug with [class]”

Git just had to go out and be special that way....

I hadn't heard of these, thanks for sharing!

There is also Tangled (over AT Protocol) and Grasp (over nostr) - but I think both are less mature than Radicle.

Gitea or forgejo are super solid and super lightweight with a sqlite db

I think the radicle-explorer project handles the web interface. I have no idea whether it does pdf preview. It does seem to manage markdown tho.

Sorry I can't be more help, I'm really new to it myself too. I just wanted to mention it because I think it's a cool project.

I just checked it it looks good but the challenge for me is also that it looks good as a portfolio of what I do in electronics. I would like some PDF preview or even gbf preview if possible do you think radicle could provide that?

I think radicle needs to get more love.

It's probably not the best way to showcase your skills to a recruiter, but the tech itself is really interesting.

The only way this assessment makes sense is if you're looking at specific industries or something. Meta can't compare to Microsoft in other areas. We have to use Teams and Office because all our customers do. Enterprise/Companies are integrated and bound to their tooling and user and system management.

Meta is localized. I don't see it even nearly as prevalent as Microsoft is.

As a hater of pre-commit hooks, this one seems like it's actually good.

That said, the writer would do well to check out Jujutsu. Its model of branchless commits, which you apply a branch to afterward, would alleviate a lot of her annoyances.

I might say to do both, with one of the two as a mirror

Github is important for recruiters, especially non technical ones that aren't familiar with the alternatives. Since OP has the motivation for it, having a second place might show off that OP understands git beyond Github, or the values OP might share with the employer.

Maybe in the 90s when Bill Gates was running the show. These days they're mid tier evil. Barely even maintaining a monopoly.

If it was Oracle, or Broadcom, or Meta then sure, but Microsoft aren't in their league any more.

Fuck microsoft.

Definitely more than enough. You don’t get better bot fighting than that.

Cloudflare may be enough, but you can also look at stuff like Anubis.