Why don't open source alternatives just copy the UI to make it easier to switch? Everyone knows the GitHub UI and it's intuitive. I'm happy to get more privacy and freedom, you don't have to make a worse design just to be different.
Fluxer figured this out and they're the best discord replacement imo.
Forgejo is pretty close. Its runners are largely compatible with GH’s, and its issues, labels, tags, releases, wikis, packages, branch protection, secrets/envs, signing keys, repo permissions, etc. are all largely identical. I maintain a lot of mirrors and while none of my repos are particularly complex, I haven’t ever lost anything in a migration from GitHub to Forgejo.
Gitea did a lot of work over the last view releases (since 1.21 onwards) and are really GitHub-like nowadays UI-wise. Plus it is no SPA anymore and mostly SSR with Go templates + Htmx, its site performance lets GitHub cry by the wayside. Best descision ever to leave GitHub and selfhost Gitea with some runners in our own datacenter.
I think they have the same interface. Pull requests are renamed to merge requests, that's all the difference I see. Wait for github to reshuffle the ui in a redesign churn.
Acquiring github users may not be their highest priority.
Inst gitea doing this?
> copy the UI
Good luck. The amount of features and screens on GitHub are vast aside from just those code / issues / PRs tabs.
>it's intuitive
Until you have to work with stale GHAS tool configurations, remember whether a project uses rulesets or branch settings or find that comment you wrote on a PR (and then learn that the new PR "experience" fucking hides them above a certain threshold). Those are just the issues I encounter in a typical week.
I’m not disputing how intuitive the GitHub interface is, but seriously, why is it so hard for technical professionals to set aside 10–20 minutes of their time to learn a new interface? Why has this even become an issue worth discussing?