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

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#951

Post by ahahs »

dbmikus wrote: post #829
stusmall wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Big enterprises are on a different github deployment, so I doubt they are affected by this

except the big enterprise I work at was for sure affected by this today haha

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#952

Post by toastal »

_joel wrote: post #508
toastal wrote: post #490

The PSA is that you should always have a mirror—even if just a bare repo folks can pull from during downtime. …& this is ignoring all the moral reason for avoiding US-based, publicly-traded, proprietary software for host largely free software. They also deny access to users due to US sanctions, privacy-conscious users won’t want to create accounts/agree to ToS, & rubbing shoulders with other corpos your project can b…

Sure, but it's not just the reoo. It's PR's, code review and you've got a bunch of actions then it's difficult (not impossible) to deal with those being down.

Don’t let yourself get so locked in ideally, but still keeping the code online is still quite valuable to a lot of folks.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#953

Post by OtomotO »

pelorat wrote: post #513
OtomotO wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just in the US. I have ONE European client... ONE of dozens who use GitHub. EVERY other client I've ever worked with used their own gitforge or at least bitbucket...

Github pricing is aimed at US companies. Small EU companies that can only afford to pay their 5-6 developers 60K euro per year rather selfhost than pay GitHub.

I am working for small companies, for medium sized companies and for huge behemoths.

None (apart from one customer as I said) has their code on GitHub.

The big ones because of trade secrets. Which is ironic, because most of them use Microsoft Teams and talk freely there xD

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#954

Post by jamesfinlayson »

dbbk wrote: post #686
justinbaker84 wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have wondered the same thing. Even a small fee like $50 a year would get rid of a lot of AI slop that justs eats up resources. I would gladly pay that fee if it means Github is reliable for paying customers.

Private personal repos used to be paid. Maybe they should bring that back.

I remember! I think they changed that like 10 years ago? I thought BitBucket had done something not long before and assumed GitHub was just keeping up with a competitor.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#955

Post by Gigachad »

waterTanuki wrote: post #915
Gigachad wrote: post #891

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Anyone can re-create the hosting part of GitHub. This is not the difficult nor the expensive part. 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.

I don't think people asking for github alternatives are expecting unlimited actions for $5/month. It would be acceptable if they charged credits on top or let you host the runner on your own machine.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#956

Post by dbbk »

jamesfinlayson wrote: post #954
dbbk wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private personal repos used to be paid. Maybe they should bring that back.

I remember! I think they changed that like 10 years ago? I thought BitBucket had done something not long before and assumed GitHub was just keeping up with a competitor.

I think it came right after Microsoft bought them cause they could afford it now

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#957

Post by figassis »

philipov wrote: post #899
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?

Cursor for one https://cursor.com/origin

They announced this on the day of the outage, yesterday.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#958

Post by rc1 »

Waterluvian wrote: post #257
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.

The people with the spreadsheets have determined the value of this loss leader to be too enormous to shut it off.

Value is that it holds so much code.

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#959

Post by figassis »

paustint wrote: post #938
iamcoder18 wrote: post #920

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Code.storage is able to handle large scales too: https://code.storage/ +-------------------------+-------------------------------+ | 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…

WAT is the landing page all about, my brain can't process it. I had to close the tab after 10 seconds as I got immediate anxiety.

You made me look, are they on drugs?

Re: Incident with Github.com [resolved]

#960

Post by _joel »

toastal wrote: post #952
_joel wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but it's not just the reoo. It's PR's, code review and you've got a bunch of actions then it's difficult (not impossible) to deal with those being down.

Don’t let yourself get so locked in ideally, but still keeping the code online is still quite valuable to a lot of folks.

Sure, but you have to remember that a lot of companies use the issues/trackers/PR heavily as part of their development flow. If they go down, new work can't be scheduled.
Post reply on HN