Post #4089864
2026-07-25 07:18 UTC
From what I understand from their blogpost, it was mostly about conserving their own resources, because a lot of the vibecoded projects they got were uploading insane amounts of binary releases and wasting resources on CI/CD while having no users or other collaborators.
They wanna reserve more server space for projects, that actually productively use it, like bigger FOSS projects with actual users and contributors.
That is perfectly understandable for me, even without taking my huge distaste for AI into consideration. Anyone that thinks, that this small, community funded project is obligated to host their huge slop repos semms pretty entitled to me.
Replies (3)
-
@WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2026-07-25 08:12
before reading the blog post I was thinking the same. now I don’t. the worst of the LLM projects have no place on codeberg that’s for sure, but there would have been better ways than a blanket ban to limit the resource consumption of LLM and crypto projects. codeberg already has a storage quota system, they could be giving a lower quota for LLM projects, maybe also disable free CI for them, which I am a bit surprised they have given. and solve the reputation problem with banners. but no, total blanket ban based on feelings, it is.
-
@endofline@lemmy.ca 2026-07-25 08:45
What about setting quotas? They could introduce new account validations if they wanted
-
@Evotech@lemmy.world 2026-07-27 05:22
I also think this was just about saving resources. Under the guise of licensing