161–170 of 193 posts
Gitlab provides 400 minutes a month on their free plan and you can use that on private projects, not just OSS. On top of that it is easy to setup a private CI runner on a $5 month VM.
https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/
A list of fellow OSS projects can be found at https://about.gitlab.com/solutions/open-source/projects/
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…
Because people absolutely refuse to learn from history. The gravity of the situation is the same as it always is: OSS projects have created a hard dependency on a commercial 3rd party service because it was given to them for free. Free service is now going away and they're screwed because they have no plan 'B'. The issue isn't that they haven't gotten off of it already, it's that they likely never should have gotten…
It doesn't actually matter much for this if you use an OSS CI service like Gitlab: the hosted service is still dependent on the generosity/marketing of the company hosting it, and switching to self-hosting is much more effort than porting config from one CI service to another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Doesn't change the fact that being bought by a PE firm is a very bad sign for customers of the business. Is it worse than company collapsing though? With that, you might not even have a warning sign.
Well, a collapse gives you certainty.
Seems like it’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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 businesses from playing in that space. 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 eve…
Though it hurts the current businesses, the high prices won't last long. New competitors will see the chance in same services with lower prices and they'll go in. The problem is actually regulation and lobbying, which making new players harder to emerge.
Are they trying to kill the product as fast as possible? Because waiting for a first-party solution before kicking 99% of your users out is the perfect way to do it, short of simply deleting their accounts. Good thing I was an earlier GitHub Actions adopter because now I don’t have to do as much work.
Hah. You think GitHub Actions won't do the same in a few years once this has all quieted down? You have to be better than your competitors if you want to beat them. Until you DO beat them, that is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 businesses from playing in that space. 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 eve…
> and then once the competition is dead, prices rise to way higher than they ever were before Though it hurts the current businesses, the high prices won't last long. New competitors will see the chance in same services with lower prices and they'll go in. The problem is actually regulation and lobbying, which making new players harder to emerge.
Regulation in many cases, especially in those I mentioned, makes sense:
- Taxis should not be allowed to discriminate for anything, especially not skin color. Also, at least in Germany the fares are regulated to ensure people are not ripped off in "hot times".
- Hotels, and most AirBnBs are de facto hotels, are regulated to prevent issues with fire safety, theft, privacy, noise complaints (it's illegal to build hotels in residential zones for a reason) and many others.
- Something like Grubhub putting their own intercepting phone number in Google results via shady SEO tactics and charging people for any call is just ripe for abuse by competitors, additionally it's extremely unfair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have worked on many many open source projects. I don't think I have ever worked on any where there wasn't a single person writing code while getting paid by their employer. Is that enough to disqualify you from JetBrains criteria, do you think? In email from travis support it was expressed as: > Project must not be sponsored by a commercial company or organization (monetary or with employees paid to work on the pro…
Why would this be a bad thing? Jetbrains is not a charity, and their free open source license is in order to support people who can't otherwise pay for a license, not to make another company's balance sheet look better on their dime.
I don't use jetbrains, it was brought up by analogy with travis. In Travis case, whether it's a "bad thing" or not, I think it's a dishonest thing to be claiming you provide "free service to open source projects" while introducing criteria that would exclude the majority of open source projects — which you also used to include but have switched to exclude while claiming you're doing the same as ever.
So it's clearly their perogative to set whatever criteria they like, it may or not be a "bad thing", but it is definitely a huge change from what they used to, and is only actually giving free service to a very small slice of open source projects, while publicly wanting to take credit for doing otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because people absolutely refuse to learn from history. The gravity of the situation is the same as it always is: OSS projects have created a hard dependency on a commercial 3rd party service because it was given to them for free. Free service is now going away and they're screwed because they have no plan 'B'. The issue isn't that they haven't gotten off of it already, it's that they likely never should have gotten…
What was the better option? Should small OSS projects have lived without CI for the last few years? Or should everyone who publishes an OSS project set up and maintain a self-hosted CI service for it? Either option would be a massive drag on OSS development. It doesn't actually matter much for this if you use an OSS CI service like Gitlab: the hosted service is still dependent on the generosity/marketing of the compa…
https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/import/gitlab_com.ht...
hosting CI yourself is equally simple. The worker can be installed with few commands, and with a few extra you can configure autoscalling:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft bought GitHub and offers github actions. No need for them to also buy Travis. If Microsoft buying Travis would have "saved" it, then why are you worried about GitHub actions' future?
> Microsoft bought GitHub and offers github actions. No need for them to also buy Travis. If Microsoft buying Travis would have "saved" it, then why are you worried about GitHub actions' future? I don't know ... cause ending travis free CI is going to like... disrupt an entire ecosystem of OSS projects. Every single maintainer doesn't have the time to learn and set up github actions... Isn't that obvious?
If they were walking away from people who wanted to give them money, I can imagine they don’t give a shit about OSS projects where they lose money.
TravisCI taught me a hard lesson. Relying on 3rd party for CI is a losing bet if you care about reliability and guaranteed capacity.