71–80 of 853 posts
to top it all off, they round up to the nearest whole minute instead of billing for actual usage which i assume they'll use for this new charge.
Introducing a separate charge specifically targeting those of your customers who choose to self-host your hilariously fragile infrastructure is certainly a choice.. And one I assume is in no way tied to adoption/usage-based KPIs. Of course, if you can just fence in your competition and charge admission, it'd be silly to invest time in building a superior product.
Tangled has a nix based workflow engine that looks very similar, if you are into nix and self-hosting runners https://tangled.org/tangled.org/core/blob/master/docs/spindl... (no affiliation) --- Blog post about Tangled's CI: https://blog.tangled.org/ci
Very cool! Are there any blog posts or articles about Tangled? Docs seem pretty light.
https://bsky.app/profile/tangled.org
There looks to be a blog post here: https://blog.tangled.org/ci
Why would the self-hosted runner fee be per-minute instead of per-job? I don’t get it.
I had the same question — I understand that the Actions control plane has costs on self-hosted runners that GitHub would like to recoup, but those costs are fixed per-job. Charging by the minute for the user’s own resources gives the impression that GitHub is actually trying to disincentivize third-party runners.
8h job is definitely more expensive to them than a 1 minute one, but I'd guess that the actual reason is that this way they earn more money, and dissuade users from using a third party service instead of their own runners.
Introducing a separate charge specifically targeting those of your customers who choose to self-host your hilariously fragile infrastructure is certainly a choice.. And one I assume is in no way tied to adoption/usage-based KPIs. Of course, if you can just fence in your competition and charge admission, it'd be silly to invest time in building a superior product.
They still host all artefacts and logs for these self-hosted runs. Probably costs them a fair bit
Introducing a separate charge specifically targeting those of your customers who choose to self-host your hilariously fragile infrastructure is certainly a choice.. And one I assume is in no way tied to adoption/usage-based KPIs. Of course, if you can just fence in your competition and charge admission, it'd be silly to invest time in building a superior product.
This is absolutely bananas; for my own CI workflow I'll have to pay $140+/month now just to run my own hardware.
Microsoft has started raising prices on many of their products. I suppose they decided that their current customers need to pay the increased CapEx for AI;) New motto - AI pay for it whether you use it or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> call Brent so he can fix it again Not sure if a Phoenix Project reference, but if it is, it's certainly in keeping with Github being as fragile as the company in the book!
It is xD On the outside it feels like a product held together with duct tape, wood glue and prayers.