Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Incident with Github.com [resolved]

githubstatus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 1001 posts

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#561

Post by chilmers »

jph wrote: post #499
voidnullvalue wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Codeberg isn't a viable infrastructure alternative. Its an opinionated community not a neutral host as they will delete repos based off subjective opinions on LLM usage and resource consumption. If continued hosting is dependent on moderators deciding if a project fits whatever the current philosophy is, and the whims of the moderation team, then I cannot consider it a serious choice for infrastructure. Infrastructur…

Can you suggest a viable infrastructure alternative? My wishlist: free for open source and paid for closed source, able to do simple projects that are handwritten and also complex projects including AI LLM code that needs CI/CD/auditing, and hosting in the UK or EU. Aside, I donate money to Codeberg because I think Codeberg is a wonderful service with strong commitment to free open source, and because I host some lar…

I feel like any service that is free for open source is going to struggle if it gets significant adoption and becomes a default target for hosting LLM generated code. If even MS/GitHub cannot scale to the current demand, what hope do smaller and less well-funded alternatives have?

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#562

Post by guluarte »

leishman wrote: post #171

I don't understand why Github hasn't solved this problem with pricing updates. My understanding is they are getting hammered with LLM generated code growing their traffic by over an order of magnitude. So why not rate limit non-paying users and charge for whatever scarce resource is being consumed that is causing them to constantly fall-over? This seems like a basic economics problem.

they want that code (from private repos) to train the models

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#565

Post by crucialfelix »

Retr0id wrote: post #524
ad_fontes wrote: post #185

https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/ They're struggling to maintain a single nine these days.

Interestingly this dashboard says there are currently no issues. Edit: I just realised it's hosted on gh pages and therefore probably can't be updated

It's a historical record.

https://www.githubstatus.com/ is today

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#566

Post by ryuuseijin »

hackertyper69 wrote: post #514
ryuuseijin wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just going to leave this here - self hosted forgejo on fly.io with restic backups: https://forgejo-fly.fly.dev/forgejo-admin/forgejo-fly

What is fly for?

https://fly.io/ - it runs the machine and serves the traffic

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#567

Post by 128e3123 »

scrollaway wrote: post #554
123ahsG wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I have zero investments in agentic coding; in fact, my list of investments is pretty public, so I don't really know what point you're trying to make. But creating a new account to try to defend yourself against a threat you claim to be non-existent doesn't scream "I feel secure" to me.

[flagged]

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#568

Post by adverbly »

leishman wrote: post #171

I don't understand why Github hasn't solved this problem with pricing updates. My understanding is they are getting hammered with LLM generated code growing their traffic by over an order of magnitude. So why not rate limit non-paying users and charge for whatever scarce resource is being consumed that is causing them to constantly fall-over? This seems like a basic economics problem.

> My understanding is they are getting hammered with LLM generated code growing their traffic by over an order of magnitude

Seems presumptuous to assume a root case while the incident is still ongoing, no?

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#569

Post by hugs »

zer00eyz wrote: post #329
MoreQARespect wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of alternatives for git hosting. The last thing which needs to be migrated before we get an exodus off this vibe coded monstrosity is reputation (i.e. github stars) which are inherently sticky.

Github stars are a metric of what? If I build something that satisfies me and say 100 users (who all star me) does that really say anything. Are those 100 stars even "real" any more? All the old problems of the web are new again, and still remain unsolved.

github stars are a metric of investability.

some investors use stars (and star growth velocity) to determine which projects they invest or don't invest in. (not saying it's good or bad - just saying it's a real thing.)

Post reply on HN