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

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#891

Post by Gigachad »

jm4 wrote: post #884
jubilanti wrote: post #637

Almost 3 hours in and still "We are still working to identify the root cause" Can't even view diffs in the web interface! I'm out! I am willing to pay ~$5-10/mo for a reliable host I can swap as painlessly as possible. Mostly just building little static sites and little PWAs, no more than 500mb a repo and 10gb total. Need a repo with PRs and issues, where people can register free account and contribute or raise issue…

This, in a nutshell, is why Github is the way it is and there's a lack of good alternatives. I'm not knocking you in particular because we're all pretty much in the same boat here. "I am willing to pay ~$5-10/mo for a reliable host... Need a repo with PRs and issues, where people can register free account and contribute or raise issues, GH actions CI, and pages host to deploy static sites." Who wants to build somethi…

It becomes worth it with scale. A VPS costs more than $5 but you can host a very large number of repos, a dormant repo takes no resources but disk space to host, its only activity that consumes resources, which is less than $5-$10 worth

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#892

Post by Brian_K_White »

dannyw wrote: post #679
noahbp wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because any price at all will immediately cause users to shift to another platform, and GitHub's value is that it is _the_ place to put your code on the internet.

The network effects isn’t that much, and like what we see with Steam, you want to be where the audience is. More realistically, MAU or something is a metric/OKR. It’s easy to imagine why a business wouldn’t want to cap that.

The network effect is 90% of the substance.

No one needs github for git itself, nor even for web front-end to git, nor even for hosted/managed someone else's problem web front-end to git, nor even all of that for free.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#893

Post by Fuzzwah »

figassis wrote: post #881

I think this is the curse of scale, but also of pseudo-leaders who think leadership is "pushing engineering to rapid-fire features for number go up." You tell engineers and engineering leaders to "just add this one feature, it's really important, what's the ETA? No, that's too late, the market will have moved on, this is existential, you're a bottleneck," fire, hire, fire, hire. Meanwhile the CEO feels great, because…

And then consider that GitHub hasn't had their own CEO for a year now.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#894

Post by jubilanti »

jm4 wrote: post #884
jubilanti wrote: post #637

Almost 3 hours in and still "We are still working to identify the root cause" Can't even view diffs in the web interface! I'm out! I am willing to pay ~$5-10/mo for a reliable host I can swap as painlessly as possible. Mostly just building little static sites and little PWAs, no more than 500mb a repo and 10gb total. Need a repo with PRs and issues, where people can register free account and contribute or raise issue…

This, in a nutshell, is why Github is the way it is and there's a lack of good alternatives. I'm not knocking you in particular because we're all pretty much in the same boat here. "I am willing to pay ~$5-10/mo for a reliable host... Need a repo with PRs and issues, where people can register free account and contribute or raise issues, GH actions CI, and pages host to deploy static sites." Who wants to build somethi…

Good points. I guess I keep just wanting 'you are the product' / enshitification / free tier capture to not be the dominant business model of our time. You're right that a YC VC would likely not funds this. There are many alternative business models though. (edit: https://sourcehut.org seems promising if very barebones and oldschool)

> The best parts of Github that make it worth using in the first place all come down to the size of the network

Not intrinsically, only as a side-effect of economies of scale. At least for me. The 'social' features make it more compelling and explain its widespread adoption and thus economies of scale, but not what made github worth using for me at least. It Just Worked (TM) to unite all the work we used to do in the good ol' days via repos, patches, tickets, mailing lists, IRC, build servers, and host servers.

I don't need my own VPS running 24/7, I said maybe 100 mins of CI a month, even if I'm pushing and building while others are commenting and PRing multiple times a day, it's going to still take a fraction of that VPS capacity.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#895

Post by bethekidyouwant »

esseph wrote: post #749
hombre_fatal wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it would be a mistake on your part to assume that everything in an organization, especially a large one like github, is a reflection of the capabilities of the state of the art in anything (AI, architecture, programming language, organizational management, operations, etc.). It's clear that updating the status page as quickly as possible isn't even something github cares about.

> It's clear that updating the status page as quickly as possible isn't even something github cares about. Status pages for large companies are social, political and legal tools, and not technical indicators. It has always been this way, and likely always will unless some laws were passed.

Laws? (Is the first one you must have a status page?)

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#896

Post by [deleted] »

sharts wrote: post #311
stingraycharles wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m willing to give them a break as I’m assuming they have a lot of scaling problems due to the influx of LLM assisted coding. But maybe I’m wrong?

Even Claude could have caught and addressed most of these scalability issues long ago. This can’t be due to load or capacity. This is something else.

[deleted]

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#897

Post by chillfox »

jm4 wrote: post #884
jubilanti wrote: post #637

Almost 3 hours in and still "We are still working to identify the root cause" Can't even view diffs in the web interface! I'm out! I am willing to pay ~$5-10/mo for a reliable host I can swap as painlessly as possible. Mostly just building little static sites and little PWAs, no more than 500mb a repo and 10gb total. Need a repo with PRs and issues, where people can register free account and contribute or raise issue…

This, in a nutshell, is why Github is the way it is and there's a lack of good alternatives. I'm not knocking you in particular because we're all pretty much in the same boat here. "I am willing to pay ~$5-10/mo for a reliable host... Need a repo with PRs and issues, where people can register free account and contribute or raise issues, GH actions CI, and pages host to deploy static sites." Who wants to build somethi…

You can absolutely build a solution that works for that range, you just have to pick your tech stack for efficiency and not rapid development.

CI will be the tricky one, but I am pretty sure it can work if you keep the limits low, or price it based on usage.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#898

Post by jubilanti »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #868
jubilanti wrote: post #637

Almost 3 hours in and still "We are still working to identify the root cause" Can't even view diffs in the web interface! I'm out! I am willing to pay ~$5-10/mo for a reliable host I can swap as painlessly as possible. Mostly just building little static sites and little PWAs, no more than 500mb a repo and 10gb total. Need a repo with PRs and issues, where people can register free account and contribute or raise issue…

I'm not here to shill, but would SourceHut[1] work for you? [1] https://sourcehut.org/pricing/

This is the closest I'm finding! CI, web-based ticket submission for anyone with a site-wide login, static hosting, good price... web-based patching would be nice, good to see it in development.

Some honest feedback: 10 minutes of searching and reading left my ADHD brain confused about pricing and quotas. It doesn't have any numbers for what I'm getting for $4/8/12/mo. And it took me 3 reads of that page to notice that the tiers are not actually the standard tiers, but pay-what-you-can. I first jumped to the prominent table then hunted for the fine print for the quotas, didn't even the read "there is no difference between the subscriptions besides price." Then read it but my mind thought "OK, all features are available to all tiers, but at what quotas?" A normal VC backed company might hide this because they're trying to pull one over on you...

Also, "Sourcehut’s public alpha... What we consider an alpha passes for a production-ready system to some." That's a choice, I get it, but it makes me feel like I'd be jumping from one unreliable platform to another. Maybe link to your uptime? (And the real github uptime side by side :P)

Because another honest thought: unlike GitLab, which pretty much has the same shaped features and affordances that you can one-click import and things mostly work, this would be a pretty breaking change to that would be difficult to revert. I do see full data autonomy is on the roadmap too though.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#899

Post by philipov »

figassis wrote: post #881

I think this is the curse of scale, but also of pseudo-leaders who think leadership is "pushing engineering to rapid-fire features for number go up." You tell engineers and engineering leaders to "just add this one feature, it's really important, what's the ETA? No, that's too late, the market will have moved on, this is existential, you're a bottleneck," fire, hire, fire, hire. Meanwhile the CEO feels great, because…

Which company is capitalizing on GitHub's lack of leadership?
Post reply on HN