191–200 of 266 posts
> we started working on path to multi cloud. Is this microsoft stating that they aren't able to get acceptable reliability from Azure? (I mean, I think a lot of us have heard that, but it's interesting to hear it from microsoft themselves).
No mention of Copilot/slopiffication. Probably an intentional omission as Microsoft only has one true priority across all of its products.
I wonder if they’ll end the free lunch we’ve been having since the MS takeover. There’s been a deluge of spam and crapware projects due to the LLM wave which is visible in that graph. Can’t see them sustaining being a public dustbin for low value projects forever.
I could see them expiring/archiving/deleting inactive projects after some time. I feel like this would have negative impacts (lots of interesting historical archives on Github) but maybe if a project hasn't been touched, or cloned, in some time, it just gets deleted with some notice.
> we started working on path to multi cloud. Is this microsoft stating that they aren't able to get acceptable reliability from Azure? (I mean, I think a lot of us have heard that, but it's interesting to hear it from microsoft themselves).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Azure is easily the least reliable and least secure of the 3 hyperscalers, which is crazy because GCP was an also-ran underdog not that long ago.
This entire exercise if anything is a huge indictment of Azure. But that doesn't matter because the kind of person that buys Azure, just like the kind of person that buys MS Teams, is entirely driven by price and does not care about anything else.
I might buy that argument if Azure compensated for its awful availability and security with lower prices.
But the kind of person who buys Azure is the kind of person who buys Windows and Teams, perfectly happy to pay a premium for all the extra abuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a business user, our costs have gone up while service has gone down dramatically. Meanwhile our marginal cost to GitHub has hardly changed. Where our costs to them have increased, they mostly charge us per cpu minute, so obviously aren’t making any kind of loss on our account. I’m sure they’re experiencing scaling issues across the platform, but it’s unacceptable for that to have a negative impact on us when we're…
I understand that, and maybe GitHub became a bad deal because of that. But if anything, their post and your reply are precisely an endorsement of usage based billing. The bit that's growing 13x YoY (and which they expect will easily blow past that) is unmetered - commits. The bit that is metered (for some, not all folks) - action minutes, grew only 2x YoY. GitHub was not built to limit the number of commits, checkout…
That would only lead to further and further degradation of service until the paying customers were absolutely desperate to find a deal that didn't require them to lug around such a heavy ball and chain.
It all made sense at the beginning when Github was free for OSS and OSS was thriving, but now these billions of commits are mostly incredibly low value. I'd bet the average commit now doesn't create 1/10th of the value the average commit did in, say, 2018
I can not figure out what on Earth they've done with these graphs, it almost seems like these are an artists impression of a graph. Looking at the commit graph: Why do commits have big steps followed by slow rolloffs? Why do the steps not happen at uniform points Why do larger steps sometimes have less of a slope than smaller steps but not all the time? Then looking at the other graphs there's completely different ef…
It's because they are your standard PowerPoint graph that just shows "thing goes up" rather than actual data, or the meaning of the data.
If this is the unvetted and unbased information they are putting out in public facing-blogs, only the stars would know what data is being "presented" in their boardrooms
> we started working on path to multi cloud. Is this microsoft stating that they aren't able to get acceptable reliability from Azure? (I mean, I think a lot of us have heard that, but it's interesting to hear it from microsoft themselves).
There was somewhat recently a post here about how priorities, pressure, and management subverted Dave Cutler's vision for Azure (which was to have near zero human involvement) - my Google fu isn't strong enough to find it. Supposedly, someone running over or opening a serial to a rack/VM is now typical operational procedure.
> we started working on path to multi cloud. Is this microsoft stating that they aren't able to get acceptable reliability from Azure? (I mean, I think a lot of us have heard that, but it's interesting to hear it from microsoft themselves).
There was somewhat recently a post here about how priorities, pressure, and management subverted Dave Cutler's vision for Azure (which was to have near zero human involvement) - my Google fu isn't strong enough to find it. Supposedly, someone running over or opening a serial to a rack/VM is now typical operational procedure.