UnfortunateShort ,

Compared to Gitlab, it definitely is shit already. And that has nothing to do with the artificial restrictions. God I hate this website. I appreciate their service, but the UI is genuinely trash.

96VXb9ktTjFnRi ,

I'm not a developer so I'm not very familiar with this world. But it kind of amazes me that the code for so many open source projects are hosted by Microsoft. Isn't there a FOSS alternative? edit: seems Gitlab is an alternative. Then the question is, why are people using microsoft products?

antrosapien OP ,

Github started independently and was amazing service(and still is except now its going downhill) but Microsoft acquired it it 2018

OddFed ,
@OddFed@feddit.de avatar

Codeberg.org is the ethical choice

DacoTaco ,
@DacoTaco@lemmy.world avatar

The power of git ( the backbone of github ) comes in that you can easily take a repository and move it to a different server. Its like, 3 commands? ( git vlone, git add remote, git push ). So if people would leave github, nothing is lost :)

PoliticalAgitator ,

You don't need the question mark. If something is for-profit (or can be used for profit) then sooner or later it will be enshittified.

They have teams of people whose entire job is figuring out ways to wring a few more cents from somebody. Put them at the helm of a company that's stood for 1000 years and they'll be thrilled at how easy it will be to use that name to sell plastic dogshit at a premium price.

jjlinux ,

I'm honestly blown away by whomever finds this surprising. This is Microsoft we're talking about. Everything they touch turns into this. Taking what is not theirs, using it for profit, and not even giving credit where credit is due.

charje ,

The final strawberry for me was forcing people to have 2fa.

olmium ,

Eh? That was the final straw?

Asudox ,
@Asudox@lemmy.world avatar

Why? That's a good thing.

Omega_Haxors ,

The writing was on the wall when they established a generative AI using everyone's code and of course without asking anyone for permission.

bort ,

the writing was on the wall, when MS bought them. It's not like it's the first time they do this

xilliah ,
@xilliah@beehaw.org avatar

It's an interesting debate isn't it? Does AI transform something free into something that's not? Or does it simply study the code?

Omega_Haxors , (edited )

There's no debate. LLMs are plagiarism with extra steps. They take data (usually illegally) wholesale and then launder it.

A lot of people have been doing research into the ethics of these systems and that's more or less what they found. The reason why they're black boxes is precisely the reason we all suspected; they were made that way because if they weren't we'd all see them for what they are.

AnonStoleMyPants ,

The reason they're black boxes is because that's how LLMs work. Nothing new here, neural networks have been basically black boxes for a long time.

Kaldo ,
@Kaldo@kbin.social avatar

Sure, but nothing is theoretically stopping them from documenting every single data source input into the training module and then crediting it later.

For some reason they didn't want to do that of course.

xilliah ,
@xilliah@beehaw.org avatar

Can you link it please? I'd like to inform myself.

count_duckula ,
@count_duckula@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

The reason they are blackboxes is because they are function approximators with billions of parameters. Theory has not caught up with practical results. This is why you tune hyperparameters (learning rate, number of layers, number of neurons ina layer, etc.) and have multiple iterations of training to get an approximation of the distribution of the inputs. Training is also sensitive to the order of inputs to the network. A network trained on the same training set but in a different order might converge to an entirely different function. This is why you train on the same inputs in random order over multiple episodes to hopefully average out such variations. They are blackboxes simply because you can't yet prove theoretically the function it has approximated or converged to given the input.

JackbyDev ,

No, it's exhausting.

chebra ,
@chebra@mstdn.io avatar

@xilliah It's not free though. It came with licenses. And LLMs don't have the capability to "study", they are just a glorified random word generator.

xilliah ,
@xilliah@beehaw.org avatar

Ok

pastermil ,

They also broke some stuff with some javascript, I think. I'm using KDE's web browser (Falkon) and it used to work well.

inspxtr ,

Hold up, are you sure you can’t view Discussions or Wiki? Which sites can you not view them?

I’m fine viewing them for public repos that I usually visit.

Asking to make sure that Github is not slowly rolling out this lockdown.

antrosapien OP ,

Most probably. I was viewing discussions about podman, I could view them if directily opened from a link but it required login when navigated to linked pages and wiki

Auzy , (edited )

I just checked, and unless I'm missing something, you're wrong? Tried https://github.com/snowplow/snowplow/wiki in private browser mode. Seems to work fine.. Discussions work too.

And the restricted code search is not a big deal. You can still see and download all the source code you want and search that way. What usecase do you have for code searching without login? Lemmy is restricted too without login (as well as literally everything). The funny thing is that the last person I saw make a huge deal of this on Lemmy/Reddit, didn't have a huge number of github commits over the years (they definitely had some, so they were active though, but even our newbies at work overtook them in months)

Creating a login is free too, and so is downloading source code. Github is a FREE service lol.. And you're whinging you need to create a free login? If you don't like Github, then don't use it lol. Absolutely nothing is preventing anyone migrating lol

ReversalHatchery ,

Lemmy is restricted too without login (as well as literally everything)

You mean that you cannot comment or vote without an account? That just makes sense, because you need an account to tell the server to save some data of yours. That has to be connected to an account. Search does not (unless you are fixated on saving all actions of the user on the platform for behavioral analysis)

The funny thing is that the last person I saw make a huge deal of this on Lemmy/Reddit, didn't have a huge number of github commits over the years (they definitely had some, so they were active though, but even our newbies at work overtook them in months)

Maybe you didn't know, but not everyone in IT (job or hobby) writes code.

Creating a login is free too

Not really: you have to give personal information.
It's not much of a problem until they only need an email address and are not too opinionated on your provider, but it's not rare at all that platforms also require a phone number (either upfront at registration, or discord-microsoft-style, locking you out of your account untill you give it them) which for the most part won't be private at all. Thus, you are paying with your data. For something (repo content) that the maintainers wanted to be public and free.

Creating a login is free too, and so is downloading source code

What about the Wiki and Discussions? Several others said things that make me think it's under A/B testing.

Midnitte ,

They also added some crappy requirements to their student benefit package.
student benefit package

Are you trying to get people to use it, or trying to get people to accidentally keep paying a subscription?

GenderNeutralBro ,

The only thing surprising is that it took Microsoft almost three years to turn on the shit-spigot.

antrosapien OP ,

You gotta embrace first

Auzy ,

There's nothing wrong with it honestly, and OP seems to be giving bad info.. And trust me, I'm not a fan of Microsoft lol

i literally just tested Discussions and wiki in private browsing mode on a few repos and they work. Which just proves it's not a big deal that needing a login isn't an issue. Seems nobody actually upvoting doesn't have a login

clmbmb ,

I heard other people complaining about what OP says, so I'm thinking maybe it's A/B testing...

dinckelman ,

I don't really feel like self-hosting a Git instance is a good idea for me personally, but I've been really happy with Gitlab for around 8 years now

TootSweet ,

I moved all my open source projects to Gitlab the day Microsoft announced they were acquiring Github.

(I wish in retrospect I'd taken the time to research and decide on the right host. I likely would have gone to Codeberg instead of Gitlab had I done so. But Gitlab's still better than Github. And I don't really know for sure that Codeberg was even around back when Microsoft acquired Github.)

antrosapien OP ,

My first impression of gitlab was offputting because I was using hardened firefox and couldnt get past through cloudflare so I ended up using github. It was also better ui wise but now its just a mess

Edit: slowly i'm starting to move everything to codeberg

linuxPIPEpower ,

Codeberg us really new, i think like 2 years. Since covid for sure.

TootSweet ,

Ah. Good to know. I don't feel so bad about going with Gitlab now.

CalcProgrammer1 ,
@CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml avatar

I still left my old and unmaintained projects on GitHub but I moved all my active projects to GitLab and any new projects go there too. I have them auto mirrored back to GitHub though as the more mirrors the better. I also recently set up a Codeberg mirror for some of my projects, though GitLab's CI is what is keeping me on GitLab even though they nerfed the shit out of it and made it basically a requirement to host your own runners even for FOSS projects a year or two back. Still hate them for that and if Codeberg gets a solid CI option, leaving GitLab would make me happy. They too have seen quite a lot of enshittification in the years since Microsoft bought GitHub.

baronvonj ,
@baronvonj@lemmy.world avatar

nerfed the shit out of it and made it basically a requirement to host your own runners even for FOSS projects a year or two back.

Did they just reduce quotas (minutes?, cache storage?) or did they remove features? I've always used self-hosted runner

CalcProgrammer1 ,
@CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml avatar

Drastically nerfed the quotas. FOSS projects with a valid license used to have GitLab Premium access to shared runners and now even FOSS projects with a valid license get a rather useless 400 minutes. They also require new accounts to add CC info just to use that paltry sum which means FOSS projects can't rely on CI passing on forks to ensure a merge request passes the checks before merging, as even if you have project specific runners set up forks don't use them and neither to MRs.

I wish companies didn't offer what they can't support from the beginning rather than this embrace, extend, extinguish shit. I guess in GitLab's case there was no extend, it was just embrace FOSS projects and let them set up CI pipelines and get projects depending on the shared CI runners as part of merge request workflow for a few years and then extinguish by yoinking that access away and fucking over everyone's workflow, leaving us scrambling to set up project side runners and ruining checks on MRs.

superbirra ,

They also require new accounts to add CC

just FYI you can still register w/o a cc but the option is hidden, only reachable via 'sign in' and then 'register': https://gitlab.com/users/sign_up

that said they're shit and need to die

grue ,

I'm OOTL. Why is Codeberg better than GitLab?

TootSweet , (edited )

I'm not really sure it is. I just wish I'd shopped around before jumping to Gitlab, really.

It kindof feels like Gitlab's aims are more commercial and Codeberg's are more in line with the FOSS movement, but that's just a vague sense I have based on things I've seen but no longer remember specifically.

CalcProgrammer1's response to my post seems pretty informative and apropos, though.

bizdelnick ,
  1. It is FOSS while GitLab EE is not.
  2. It supports a lot of atifact repository formats while GitLab only docker registry.
  3. It is a non-commercial project.
superbirra ,
  1. It supports a lot of atifact repository formats while GitLab only docker registry.

not true https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/packages/package_registry/supported_package_managers.html

that said, I hate gitlab and their commercial choices, they must die

bizdelnick ,

Thank you I missed when they added this. I only track a very old FR for rpm support and was sure that situation is similar with other repos. However gitea/forgejo supports more formats including rpm.

toastal ,

Codeberg is ran by a German nonprofit. GitLab is publically-traded on NASDAQ.

gian ,

Make the move from Gitlab to Codeberg in the last few days: really simple to do, give it a try ;-)

TootSweet ,

Yeah, good thought. The only reason I haven't is just because I worry that moving constantly might deter people from using any of my FOSS projects. Just seems like it could be considered a red flag (a sign of a "bad" or poorly-managed project) to some. (And... well... given that I didn't do the research when I moved those projects, it wouldn't be an entirely inaccurate conclusion to draw.)

Oh, I guess also I'd need to log back into my Github and change everything that says "moved to Gitlab" to say "moved to Codeberg" and update links. (I literally force-pushed to overwrite the entire history of my Github projects with a single commit each with just a README that says it moved to Gitlab with a link.)

Plus, if I really looked into it, I might decide I'd prefer to self-host on something like Gitea.

I guess all that to say I'd definitely want to put more thought into it before migrating any particular place a second time. Doing the actual move is indeed the easy part, but there's a lot of thought and research to do before that. And a lot of meta-considerations to take into account.

Sounds like you like Codeberg, though. Just out of curiosity, what sold you on Codeberg?

akrot ,

The landscape is changing so fast thanks to LLMs, everything is becoming gated behind logins. Thanks ChatGPT.

mogoh ,

What are good alternatives to GitHub except selfhosting?
I only know gitlab.com.
Anything else?

Slotos ,

Sourcehut

atomkarinca ,

codeberg

Blaze ,
@Blaze@discuss.online avatar

Codeberg

Potatos_are_not_friends ,

I would say bitbucket except I don't recommend bitbucket.

gian ,

Codeberg

toastal ,

SSH + an HTTP server can work if you are going barebones

mozz Admin ,
mozz avatar

I'm still stuck on why I have to create a password-equivalent API token, and then store it on my hard drive if I want an at-all-convenient workflow.

"We made it more secure!"

"How is storing it on my hard drive more secure"

"Just have it expire after a week!"

"How is it more secure now, seems like now there are two points of failure in the system, and anyway I keep hearing about security problems in github which this hasn't been a solution to any of them"

"SHUT UP THAT'S HOW"

ISometimesAdmin ,
@ISometimesAdmin@the.coolest.zone avatar

An API token is more secure than a password by virtue of it not needing to be typed in by a human. Phishing, writing down passwords, and the fact that API tokens can have restricted scopes all make them more secure.

Expiration on its own doesn't make it more secure, but it can if it's in the context of loading the token onto a system that you might lose track of/not have access to in the future.

Individual API tokens can also be revoked without revoking all of them, unlike a password where changing it means you have to re-login everywhere.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Lmk if you have questions, though.

mozz Admin ,
mozz avatar

Oh, API tokens in general, I think are great. As an additional layer of security between "I need my program to be able to access this API" and "I type my password", they are great. My issue is with the specific way that github has implemented them.

An API token is more secure than a password by virtue of it not needing to be typed in by a human.

Remind me. When I create my API token, how do I provide it to git?

Am I, more or less, forced to save my token to persistent storage in a way I wouldn't be with a password? I realize that most people store either one in a password manager at this point. My point is, if you're going to store your password-equivalent in a password manager, how have you achieved greater security as compared with storing a password in the same password manager? How is that not just adding another compromise vector?

Phishing

Remind me. Does making a system significantly more complex mean that phishing gets easier? Or harder?

As an example, if someone can phish my password from me to compromise my security, is that better or worse than if they can either phish my password or else compromise my tokens? I remember this compromise for example, but I can't remember whether it involved passwords or tokens.

writing down passwords

Remind me. Help me understand. Can someone write down their github password if the API token system exists? If they have to use it sometimes to log in to the web site anyway?

and the fact that API tokens can have restricted scopes

Yes. API tokens are a good system, in general, and restricting the scope of what they can do and making them time-limited are good reasons why.

My argument is that, in general, (a) adding an additional point of access to a system without doing anything to disable the existing point of access, and (b) saving a password equivalent to someone's system instead of having the "standard way" be for them to retype their password to authenticate each session but not have it saved anywhere, are both overall reductions in security.

I get the motivation that github sometimes protects really critical stuff, and so it needs to be more secure. I am saying that their particular implementation of API tokens led to an overall reduction in security as opposed to an increase.

ReversalHatchery ,

Remind me. When I create my API token, how do I provide it to git?

By copy-pasting it somewhere it has access to it. It can be the config file, it has several ways to use the system's secret storage, and you can also autotype it from your password manager every time if you want.

forced to save my token to persistent storage in a way I wouldn't be with a password

So not really

My point is, if you're going to store your password-equivalent in a password manager, how have you achieved greater security as compared with storing a password in the same password manager?

Passwords can be short and simple. API tokens are lengthy and random, and you can't change that. Also, you never type in your API key, and that can help against shoulder- and camera-surfing.

without doing anything to disable the existing point of access

You can't do that, because

  • the API token is strictly for API access for outside programs
  • the API token cannot be used to manage your account, like change password or emails, or to create additional tokens

API tokens are not a total replacement, just a more secure and restricted replacement for the everyday and not too risky tasks and for automated systems.

mozz Admin ,
mozz avatar

I think this comment pretty well summarizes my argument on it. The only parts not addressed:

Passwords can be short and simple. API tokens are lengthy and random, and you can't change that.

You can, as most modern web services including github do, have a minimum length and complexity for the password. That's a very important part of the process yes.

Plus, you seem to still not be grasping the core of my argument: github still authenticates with a password. You can still log in to the web site and change everything, if you compromise someone's password, whether because it's insufficiently complex or for any other reason.

Also, you never type in your API key, and that can help against shoulder- and camera-surfing.

I would like to see a quantitative comparison of how many github compromises there have been because of a stolen API token vs. compromises of some comparable service from a shoulder-surfed password.

ReversalHatchery ,

You can, as most modern web services including github do, have a minimum length and complexity for the password. That's a very important part of the process yes.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. What I wanted to say is that passwords can be insecure, and in the case of lazy people that had consequences on security. I think the minimum is often not really secure, it's just "fine if you really must" but allowed to not lose to many users.
And at the same time tokens are always secure. It's not defined by the user, they cannot lazy it away, it's made equally complicated for everyone. Fortunately they don't have to type it either, it's copy paste and done.

However I have to admit that while writing this response, complexity is not really the point with github access tokens.

Plus, you seem to still not be grasping the core of my argument: github still authenticates with a password. You can still log in to the web site and change everything, if you compromise someone's password, whether because it's insufficiently complex or for any other reason.

That's right, these tokens won't protect the lazy from their account being taken over. But I think these are still more secure for their use case: storing them in mostly text files, because the programs to which you give these will probably do that, and as these are not really password-equivalent things (these have very limited access to your account), it's less of a problem.

Your original question here was how will it be more secure that we are storing these tokens in our password managers besides our passwords. My answer is that even if you put it into your password manager, that's not it's final place: it will probably end up in text files and other such places, and if such a file gets into the wrong hands you'll be in less of a trouble because of the limited permissions. If you would have stored your password there, you could be hoping that you'll get your account back, and that the person did not do anything bad in your name.

I think much of the confusion is coming from you believing that api tokens are equivalent to passwords. That's not the case. Even if you give all possible permissions to a token, it won't be able to do everything that you can do with the password through the website. In short, the main point here is that you don't have to use your password in places where that's totally unnecessary, and fewer permissions are fine.

mozz Admin ,
mozz avatar

Can you really not understand that the github web site still uses passwords? And that these users you describe still need to know and use their github password in order to use github? So all the issues you describe with passwords still exist under github's current security model. You're getting that I'm saying that, right? I have more to say but I wanna pause for a second to focus on that point. If github really had replaced passwords with some other approach, or added a layer to their password security (e.g. enforced semi-2FA like Google does) I'd have a whole different take on it.

And, please don't say things like "much of the confusion." It's condescending and wrong to imply that the only possible reason we could be disagreeing is that I'm confused.

mozz Admin ,
mozz avatar

it will probably end up in text files and other such places, and if such a file gets into the wrong hands you'll be in less of a trouble because of the limited permissions

I am abandoning this conversation. This is only true with API tokens. With passwords, it generally stays in the password manager. The fact that the damage from your stolen API token is then mitigated if you've reduced its scope still leaves you in a worse position than if it had never been stored in the text file and never been stolen in the first place. If you can't or won't grasp this central point (or the other I mentioned in my other message), I think we have nothing to discuss.

ReversalHatchery ,

The fact that the damage from your stolen API token is then mitigated if you've reduced its scope still leaves you in a worse position than if it had never been stored in the text file and never been stolen in the first place.

First, it's not a question if you have reduced it's permissions. With an api token you simply can't do a lot of things that you can with a password.

Second, you don't use api tokens as a hobby. You use them because you want to use a tool that needs to have access to your account. Either you use an api token that has a limited set of permissions, or your password that can do anything. Independently of that, it will be stored in a plain text file, because where in the heaven would it store it so that it does not need to prompt you for it every single time? Yes, there are a dozen secret store programs that could be used instead, but a lot of programs will not have support for every one of them. I fail to see that in case how a token with fewer permissions is worse than a password with all the permissions.

mozz Admin ,
mozz avatar

Aha, I think we have arrived at the crux of the confusion.

As I said several times before, I'm extremely in favor of using API tokens that way, when they're being used from an automated workflow where the alternative is to store a password. That's an increase in security, yes.

What I'm irritated about is that my use of git as a command-line tool does not function to interact with github if I just give my github password. I do not have an automated workflow. I'm just using git from the command line, and would like to be able to type my password.

If this reduction in the security and convenience of my daily setup is because github believes, as you do apparently, that the only reason to use the command line is from an automated workflow, that may form a clue as to why they don't give a shit about my preferred workflow or my not wanting to introduce new attack vectors into it. Fair enough. But please don't lecture me on how not letting me just enter my password, and forcing me to store tokens for my interactive workflow, is better. Because for me, it isn't.

Glad we had this talk.

ReversalHatchery ,

Yes, it looks like it was me who was confused. I did not know that github does not accept anymore the password when using git, and you're right that this is unnecessary. Sorry that I was rude, me implying that you were confused really wasn't a friendly thing.

If you use git often, and this is in the way for you, I think it's possible to save it in the gitconfig, tough, if that's fine. I think git should be able to use the credential manager of mac's too if you use that, but maybe it needs a separate package installed for that to work.

mozz Admin ,
mozz avatar

Hey it's all good. In seriousness I am glad we came to a point of understanding now.

And yeah, my API token I generated for the command line, I keep stored in my OSX keychain. It's all set at this point. I'm just irritated that I had to go through all that bollocks in the first place, and for no increase in security but actually a slight reduction, since my github password is not in the OSX keychain, but in a much-more-secure password manager and in my memory. And, that from time to time the whole issue rears its head again like it did yesterday.

Actually, holy shit - you just made me realize, as I was thinking on that "slight reduction in security" statement, that the pass"phrase" for my OSX keychain is one that I reused in other places on the internet, not one that I treat as "holy shit needs to be super-secure" like for my other password manager. Brb I am changing that right now.

mozz Admin ,
mozz avatar

Case in point. This literally just happened to me just now:

me@My-MacBook content % brew install projectdiscovery/tap/httpx
==> Tapping projectdiscovery/tap
Cloning into '/usr/local/Homebrew/Library/Taps/projectdiscovery/homebrew-tap'...
Username for 'https://github.com': me
Password for 'https://me@github.com': 
remote: Support for password authentication was removed on August 13, 2021.
remote: Please see https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/getting-started-with-git/about-remote-repositories#cloning-with-https-urls for information on currently recommended modes of authentication.
fatal: Authentication failed for 'https://github.com/projectdiscovery/homebrew-tap/'
Error: Failure while executing; `git clone https://github.com/projectdiscovery/homebrew-tap /usr/local/Homebrew/Library/Taps/projectdiscovery/homebrew-tap --origin=origin --template= --config core.fsmonitor=false` exited with 128.

Boy, I sure am glad I'm more secure now. I think the easiest way to get out of this is literally to make a new API token just for me to be able to type to this command. Time to log in to github and spend a few minutes not accomplishing what I was trying to do originally.

As I said before, using API tokens for genuine automated access, I'm all for. An easy way might be to only support typing passwords on interactive ttys or something, and enforce API tokens otherwise. But as it is, and especially given the fact that they're specifically reducing the security of the interactive case, it's hard not to be irritated when this kind of thing happens.

Edit: Oh, and it made me type my password into the github web site in order to generate the token. Hope no one's shoulder- or camera-surfing me.

Also, I was following old instructions anyway; the command failed and I learned I should have just done brew install httpx. I wish github was configured so I could have learned that 10 minutes ago.

bizdelnick ,

Never used it in GitHub, but in GitLab it is not password equivalent, you can restrict its usage.

superbirra ,

it's obviously the same in github OP don't know what is talking about lol

JackbyDev ,

Because of someone gets your API token they can only push and pull. If someone gets your password they can do anything

mozz Admin , (edited )
mozz avatar

Let's go over the attack vectors involved for different common workflows. I'm going to use the specific case of how I use git.

  1. Store passwords in pass, have them memorized and type them anew every time
  2. Store passwords in pass, store API tokens in OSX keychain

Which is more secure? The thing that you're saying is better-protected because it's limited, doesn't exist in workflow #1. The tokens aren't limited to push and pull, because they're limited to nothing.

If someone gets my password in case #2, they can still do anything. That's my central point -- you haven't removed any point of vulnerability, you've created another point of vulnerability and then mandated that people use it. And this isn't an abstract issue; there are several compromises of github data stemming from people's API tokens being compromised. My assertion is that in some of those cases, using case #1 instead of storing the API tokens would have prevented the compromise. Maybe I am wrong in that. I know that password compromises happen too. But my point is, you're not preventing anybody from getting their password compromised. Someone can still steal my password out of pass. Someone who puts a keylogger on my computer will have the passwords to my OSX keychain and pass, both. You're simply introducing another point of compromise, additional to password compromises, and mandated storage of your new password-equivalents on storage where before you at least had the option of memorizing them and typing them every time.

Edit: And just to say it again, I have no problem with API tokens. If someone's got an automated workflow set up, such that they have to set up a password-equivalent on their script that accesses github, they should absolutely create a usage-restricted API token and use that instead. I'm talking more specifically about the decision to ban people from typing their passwords when they want to interact with github, pretending that somehow that makes compromising the un-usage-restricted password impossible (when it doesn't at all), and forcing people to store auth tokens in their local storage when they'd rather type their password every time.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • opensource@lemmy.ml
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •