Live data from Hacker News

GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

twitter.com

101–110 of 133 posts

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#101

It does not seem unreasonable that if the locally-run actions are using some GitHub resources (for logging, maintenance,etc) then there's a cost to that. What a reasonable charge is, is open to discussion.

Classic SaaS platform problem. If you give it away, it will cost you money - and eventually someone will "arbitrage" it at sufficient scale to matter. If you charge for it, your billing becomes a nightmare collection of counters and rates, impossible for users to estimate and understand.

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#102
post #43

There's one thing I don't understand. Isn't GitHub action just "take a repo, do something with it, save something somewhere". So how is it different than writing a bash script that "clones the repo, do something with it, pushes the changes back"? If actions became paid feature, wouldn't that just generated myriads of show hn posts like "I recreated GitHub actions in xyz"?

Yea but a bash script isn't declarative so thats somehow bad.

(DECLARATIVE CI WHY?????)

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#103
post #35

Outside of work, I'm a very sporadic coder. On some side-projects where I'm using Actions, I'll have an inspired few days of progress followed by completely idle weeks/months/quarters. Losing free Actions doesn't particularly bother me, and I have no issue with paying what is most likely a negligible amount, but I don't really want to have a credit card on file which could be charged some unbounded amount if somebody…

Realistically you aren't their target market. They're targeting the enterprises who already have self hosted runners and aren't interested in switching to Actions minutes.

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#104
post #43

There's one thing I don't understand. Isn't GitHub action just "take a repo, do something with it, save something somewhere". So how is it different than writing a bash script that "clones the repo, do something with it, pushes the changes back"? If actions became paid feature, wouldn't that just generated myriads of show hn posts like "I recreated GitHub actions in xyz"?

[deleted]

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#105
post #25

> GitHub stated that it has canceled the price increase after reviewing developer feedback. It added that it will take time to listen to customers and partners. I get the feeling they got the feedback that their runners are not as indispensable to developers as they thought and realized they would lose a significant amount of users. Now if only they would listen to the feedback about windows 11 and their forced copil…

I wonder if Microsoft will ever get that asking users before making changes can help them avoid looking bad in public. Maybe half of all clients I work with use GitHub Actions for CI (the rest basically all use Jenkins), most of those using Actions use self-hosted runners for performance and security reasons, almost all of them reached out to me asking how difficult it would be to move away from GitHub Actions yet co…

MSFT used to be extremely good about that in the 90s. From the book Showstoppers: MSFT sent not one, but three batches of NT 3.1 beta to external developers before the final release.

The idea nowadays is iterate fast and break things (as long as it’s not your wallet or your leg).

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if Microsoft will ever get that asking users before making changes can help them avoid looking bad in public. Maybe half of all clients I work with use GitHub Actions for CI (the rest basically all use Jenkins), most of those using Actions use self-hosted runners for performance and security reasons, almost all of them reached out to me asking how difficult it would be to move away from GitHub Actions yet co…

Fun thing is that almost every other CI as a service provider charges you in some shape or form for self hosted runners. CircleCI limits the number of self-hosted Job Running in parallel based on your plan and charges a fixed base fee per seat. So moving away from GHA will not make self-hosted runners free, they’ll move into a different pricing structure that may or may not be beneficial. And I think charging for sel…

Gitlab enters the room, where self-hosted runners are as free as in free beer (maintenance yes, but no limit on runners and no pricing expect on a per-user basis).

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun thing is that almost every other CI as a service provider charges you in some shape or form for self hosted runners. CircleCI limits the number of self-hosted Job Running in parallel based on your plan and charges a fixed base fee per seat. So moving away from GHA will not make self-hosted runners free, they’ll move into a different pricing structure that may or may not be beneficial. And I think charging for sel…

Gitlab enters the room, where self-hosted runners are as free as in free beer (maintenance yes, but no limit on runners and no pricing expect on a per-user basis).

Yet.

Gitlab has proven in the past perfectly happy to hike prices above GitHub, after attracting enough switchers.

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#108
post #67
post #25

> GitHub stated that it has canceled the price increase after reviewing developer feedback. It added that it will take time to listen to customers and partners. I get the feeling they got the feedback that their runners are not as indispensable to developers as they thought and realized they would lose a significant amount of users. Now if only they would listen to the feedback about windows 11 and their forced copil…

I feel like I could specify and vibe-code a CI workflow system that would be dramatically better (for a single organization’s workflow) than GitHub Actions. And hosting it would be barely more complex than hosting a GitHub Actions self-hosted runner. The stack would be: Postgres, as a job queue and job status tracker. The entire control plane state lives in here. Even in a fairly large org, the transaction rate would…

[dead]

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#109
post #25

> GitHub stated that it has canceled the price increase after reviewing developer feedback. It added that it will take time to listen to customers and partners. I get the feeling they got the feedback that their runners are not as indispensable to developers as they thought and realized they would lose a significant amount of users. Now if only they would listen to the feedback about windows 11 and their forced copil…

> Now if only they would listen to the feedback about windows 11 and their forced copilot we might be onto something. You can just uninstall Copilot? It’s nowhere on my Surface Laptop 7 with W11.

Why should anyone have to take action against it? Good products don't need to be forced upon users, an obnoxious ad in one of the dozen places Windows shows advertising would have sufficed. People even willingly fork over cash for ChatGPT and Claude and those don't even have OS ad placements or forced installs.

Re: GitHub postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun thing is that almost every other CI as a service provider charges you in some shape or form for self hosted runners. CircleCI limits the number of self-hosted Job Running in parallel based on your plan and charges a fixed base fee per seat. So moving away from GHA will not make self-hosted runners free, they’ll move into a different pricing structure that may or may not be beneficial. And I think charging for sel…

Depends if they are using another CI provider or running Jenkins themselves. But also, Circle CI would be a known cost change. Right now, the only thing you know is that GitHub wants to start charging money. You have no idea what new pricing model they come up with.

Self-hosting all of your CI is yet another tradeoff. The software comes for free (if you're using Free Software, that is), but you now have operational overhead. I'm not saying it's an unreasonable move, but it's also not a free swap
Post reply on HN