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?
Incident with Github.com [resolved]
911–920 of 1001 posts
Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]
#912Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]
#913This is starting to feel like Twitter. For a variety of reasons, we had a centralized place where everyone of a particular set of persuasions could connect, and this had outsize benefits for the community as a whole. That place is becoming untenable, and with the loss of goodwill and stability, the community’s started to dissipate. But there isn’t one obvious transition candidate, so the diaspora is finding itself sp…
Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]
#914Earlier 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?
[flagged]
I also find the excuses for these trillion dollar companies pathetic. These are entirely human constructed systems, if they can't understand what they made and how to improve it then maybe we need to question the way they write software in general if it's this unsustainable.
I hardly doubt some other team with better leadership qualities couldn't improve things to be better than they are now.
Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]
#915Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
It's the actions. The compute to run them isn't cheap at scale nor is the amount of auditing you need to do for security and compliance if you want enterprise/government customers.
Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]
#916Earlier 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.
Being the _the_ place for open source is what let them dominate the enterprise. Now that they dominate the enterprise, it'd make financial sense to put hard limits on the free tier. It's cynical but it would be foolish to lose that cash machine. It'd open them up for a competitor to slowly build up good will in open source then take them on in enterprise, but right now they are risking losing it all.
Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]
#917I 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 also sell the machinery to produce the slop (through OpenAI at least). If they make it harder to push slop on github, people might treat it as an incentive to generate less slop. Less tokens sold. Bad. Very bad. The github paying customers are not going to move away. Plus, it's probably genuinely hard to scale. And they can't throw compute at the problem - all compute is already going to the LLMs.
Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]
#918Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has to be rage bait, this is a critical piece of infrastructure for many people. Stuff going down can lead to deployments failing and as you mentioned in many cases emergency hotfix's. The idea that we should be fine with this unreliability is just amazing. It's not a mental health issue to have problems when important infra fails.
> The idea that we should be fine with this unreliability is just amazing. the comment doesnt say you should be "fine" with the unreliability. they are saying people shouldnt get so emotionally worked up over it. which, while i wouldn't phrase it in the way the parent did, i agree with the direction of their point.
Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]
#919Almost 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…
+-------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Total storage limit | Unlimited |
| Git request rate limits | Unlimited (Seen: 500+/s/repo) |
| API rate limits | Unlimited (Seen: 15k+/s) |
| Max repos | Unlimited |
| Concurrent writes | 30+ |
| Repository size limit | 32TB |
| Git LFS | Supported |
| GitHub/3rd party sync | Supported |
+-------------------------+-------------------------------+
Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]
#920I 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…
+-------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Total storage limit | Unlimited |
| Git request rate limits | Unlimited (Seen: 500+/s/repo) |
| API rate limits | Unlimited (Seen: 15k+/s) |
| Max repos | Unlimited |
| Concurrent writes | 30+ |
| Repository size limit | 32TB |
| Git LFS | Supported |
| GitHub/3rd party sync | Supported |
+-------------------------+-------------------------------+