121–130 of 193 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what kind of project would you use this in? I can see how this might combat a very specific type of abuse, but it seems like it'd be even more effective in deterring contributions entirely.
Any project where I as project operator cannot afford CI credits for the hundreds of pull requests people submit to me while presuming I can afford to provide them CI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there any evidence of private equity providing benefits for society? Sometimes it looks like they have a inverse Midas hand, everything they touch putrefy.
You're getting the cause and effect backwards. Private equity generally buys companies that are already in rough shape and tries to turn them into something profitable (which often means a lot of cost cutting). That's an important part of the ecosystem. If anyone's harming society it's the VC ecosystem that gets companies hooked on free money and encourages them to burn it as fast as possible, blocking sustainable bu…
Many people are saying to those of us who _haven't_, for one reason or another, gotten completely off of Travis CI, "the writing was on the wall" or "you can't expect free forever." And I think they're missing the gravity of the situation—there were (and are still) a _ton_ of OSS projects out there that are configured to use Travis CI for their testing and build pipelines, and it's not free to switch to something els…
There's obviously a cost associated with this, but after started reading this thread, I just ported 10+ of my GitHub project from Travis-CI to GitHub Actions.
Unless your project has very specific/weird build requirements (in which case it should not be part of .travis.yml, but in a separate, reusable build-script), it was really surprisingly simple to make the switch.
I've ported Emacs, NodeJS and Python projects with ease. Having had many of my project built using makefiles, running that makefile somewhere else was no big deal at all.
If anything, if making the switch now is hard work, you should use that effort into making your build more portable. You may thank yourselves 5-10 years down the road when this same thing surely is bound to happen again :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, Jeff, actually thanks to your post I saw that most of the projects I contribute to had Travis CI builds take almost a day and I went over most of those that used free TravisCI/CircleCI/Semaphore and started migrating them all to Github Actions. So again, thank you for your particular inscription on the blog, I guess.
Another point: is there an open spec for GH Actions, that Gitlab could implement? Or vice versa, could Github support Gitlab CI? I am thinking of CI these days as some kind of wild west as back in the days before a common Open Container Initiative spec...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I honestly think this is the price that people pay for using proprietary software. The license terms changed and boom now you're out of service. If such OSS projects were running on Gitlab (either gitlab.com or selfhosted) then any of the members could have donated spare computing resources by running a gitlab runner on their prem. Many people have PCs running 24/7 and could spare a vm to lend to their favourite proj…
Running arbitrary code on a distributed network of end user PCs with network access is a recipe for a bot net. Yes it’s doable but it’s not a magic wand to claim that an open platform will solve it. The magic of Travis was that with a couple clicks of OAuth you were signed up and running builds for your own PRs. My first thought upon seeing this years ago was “ How many people are using this to mine crypto?! “.
With GitHub Actions it's even simpler, and no OAuth required at all.
I especially like the auto-suggested template-types based on what kind of project the repo hosts (Node, Python, etc).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there any evidence of private equity providing benefits for society? Sometimes it looks like they have a inverse Midas hand, everything they touch putrefy.
You're getting the cause and effect backwards. Private equity generally buys companies that are already in rough shape and tries to turn them into something profitable (which often means a lot of cost cutting). That's an important part of the ecosystem. If anyone's harming society it's the VC ecosystem that gets companies hooked on free money and encourages them to burn it as fast as possible, blocking sustainable bu…
It's even worse: VC "burn money" is way too often actively destroying and undercutting existing businesses in the guise of "disruption", and then once the competition is dead, prices rise to way higher than they ever were before.
Cases in point: Uber (destroying local taxis and then milking the customers dry with "surge fees"), AirBnB (literally "disrupting" all the neighbors around the illegal hotels), Facebook/Twitter (which competed with sustainable, moderated alternatives and now "disrupt" entire elections by allowing propaganda and lies unchecked), Doordash/Grubhub/whatever, they're all bad by actively MITMing and otherwise extorting restaurants, Yelp (again, extorting small businesses), Amazon (even though they're not using VC money, they're still burning down physical stores).
Only a few weeks ago they wrote a letter ( https://blog.travis-ci.com/oss-announcement ) that said "Open source accounts, as always, will be completely free under travis-ci.com." Their home page at travis-ci.com still says: > Testing your open source projects is always 100% free! > Seriously. Always. We like to think of it as our way of giving back to a community that gives us so much as well. That is simply not what…
"including no company funds any part of it, including paying people to work on it(?!)" JetBrains open source licenses have a similar restriction https://www.jetbrains.com/opensource/ > Your project is NOT sponsored by a commercial company or organization and does NOT have paid employees > Your project does NOT provide commercial services (such as consulting or training) around the software, and does NOT distribute pa…
Projects which have a sponsoring company or consulting/training/paid-tier income around them can afford to pay that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Running arbitrary code on a distributed network of end user PCs with network access is a recipe for a bot net. Yes it’s doable but it’s not a magic wand to claim that an open platform will solve it. The magic of Travis was that with a couple clicks of OAuth you were signed up and running builds for your own PRs. My first thought upon seeing this years ago was “ How many people are using this to mine crypto?! “.
> My first thought upon seeing this years ago was “How many people are using this to mine crypto?!“. Having worked at a Travis CI competitor that also offered open-source credits. The answer is "many" if you don't do anything about it...
The question is how long the free party at github actions will last. That must be a considerable drain for github's Microsoft internal budget. I predict that will eventually end too as they aim towards profitability.
If CI builds were defined in a programming language that provided clear semantics, abstraction and modularity then porting to a new build host would be 10x easier. It would be an "annoying" or "fiddly" level of work rather than a time sink costing hours and hours.
you already can do a lot by writing a bunch of scripts that will be executed on a CI, and just fiddle with differences in like metadata/artifact/how you declare your containers.
and while you are there, you can generate the code CI definitions for more than one CI provider (think of it like "multi-cloud" but for CI approach.