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

An update on GitHub availability

github.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 266 posts

Re: An update on GitHub availability

#221

Post by jamesfinlayson »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #187
embedding-shape wrote: post #31

Hah, love that now they say "Our priorities are clear: availability first, then capacity, then new features" when 6 months ago, it was seemingly exactly the same except Azure supposedly was gonna save them: > GitHub Will Prioritize Migrating to Azure Over Feature Development - GitHub is working on migrating all of its infrastructure to Azure, even though this means it'll have to delay some feature development. > In a…

If they had not added or changed any features to GitHub for the past 5 years, nobody would be upset, and yet, they keep changing it. It's a website that doesn't need to be reworked every five minutes. I assume the main development teams maintaining GitHubs codebase are ran by managers who cannot justify their jobs unless they deliver new features for the sake of delivering new features to keep their jobs going, and /…

> They severely nerfed their search

This always kills me. It used to work so well, and now it doesn't seem to work at all if not logged in, and not particularly well if you are logged in.

Re: An update on GitHub availability

#222

Post by consumer451 »

zamalek wrote: post #208
ok_dad wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This one? https://isolveproblems.substack.com/p/how-microsoft-vaporize...

That's the one!

Amazing read. Thanks to both of you for finding that.

> I later researched this further and found that no one at Microsoft, not a single soul, could articulate why up to 173 agents were needed to manage an Azure node, what they all did, how they interacted with one another, what their feature set was, or even why they existed in the first place.

This reads like a description of the SLS-based (aka Senate Launch System) Artemis program, which somehow ended up deciding that the insane Lunar Gateway should be a thing.

Destin (SmarterEveryDay on YouTube) [0] called out the entire nutball scheme to NASA, at NASA. This includes the SLS/Orion/Lunar Gateway insanity, and calling out the number of unknown, but very large number, of on-orbit refuelings that Starship would need to get to the moon.

In that video's comments, I believe there is someone who worked on the Orion-related system, who says ~"Yeah, we thought the delta-v was too low, we could have increased it, but no one was speaking with each other at a whole system level."

The mission drift at large orgs, gov and corp, is a huge problem that might one day be solved?

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU

Re: An update on GitHub availability

#223

Post by jamesfinlayson »

jasoncartwright wrote: post #19
mijoharas wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, amazon (shopping, along with prime video e.t.c.) runs on AWS.

Prime video uses a non-AWS CDN when I watch football on it here in the UK

I'd believe it - CloudFront always felt a bit like AWS ticking a box ("we have a CDN") rather than being a good to use product.

Re: An update on GitHub availability

#224

Post by jamesfinlayson »

whstl wrote: post #71
torben-friis wrote: post #62

Not enough attention is being put in the production/delivery mismatch. GitHub is claiming they require 30x scale due to the giant increase in repository creation, PRs, commits, etc. I have not seen a single product increase in features or quality as an end user, nor new significant products have come out in this period (other than the LLMs themselves). Where is all this code going?

I for one believe Microsoft when they say this code is going to Github... to die. Half of my friends is vibe-coding something but they can barely get the rest of the group chat to use it once. In companies, I see people vibe-coding "miracle apps" that fall under the smallest amount of scrutiny. Basically people are doing the same developers do when they say "I can do this in a weekend", which is getting a prototype s…

Yeah I was talking to someone recently that needed some feature in a long-abandoned tool. They vibe-coded the feature and it worked, so good for them, but then they added up vibe-coding a bunch of extra features that they didn't need, just because.

Re: An update on GitHub availability

#225

Post by bmitc »

panarky wrote: post #195
alper wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> entirely driven by price 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.

It's curious how bad people say Azure is. I've never used it, but I've used AWS, and AWS is a gigantic mess. So that makes me concerned if Azure is worse than a gigantic mass.

Re: An update on GitHub availability

#226

Post by jamesfinlayson »

sgarland wrote: post #140
tankenmate wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds more like a belief, based on little more than "correlation is causation", than analysis that controls for macro-trends backed by evidence.

It is, but everyone is entitled to beliefs. Anecdotally, I feel the same way. Everywhere I’ve been, there has always been a legacy monolith that was stable as a rock, with dozens of new microservices scattered around it in an attempt to exit the monolith. The microservices have never once been stable. People fail to take the most basic things into consideration, like “you can’t have Consistency and Availability when…

I feel like this accurately described my last two jobs - the rock solid old system that never fails plus a bunch of inconsequential microservices hanging off it (because microservice are the hot new thing, but the microservice people are still smart enough to not replace core functionality from the old system).

Re: An update on GitHub availability

#227

Post by jamesfinlayson »

sbarre wrote: post #49
cedws wrote: post #39

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.

I hope not but it will probably happen.

Just last week I found an interesting repo that hadn't been touched in 9 years. I immediately cloned it as it was something reverse engineered so DMCA isn't out of the question, but now I have two reasons to clone.

Re: An update on GitHub availability

#228

Post by joeywas »

stackskipton wrote: post #206
tracker1 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious how Azure DevOps reliability has been for comparison. My current job is managing stories in DevOps with SCC in GitHub ent. While I like Github slightly more, have been curious about the decision.

We use Azure DevOps at work for few things. It's been pretty rock solid since all agents don't recommend it and it's different architecture. It's also legacy at this point since Microsoft is pouring all resources into GitHub but for most people/companies, they could probably use Azure DevOps just fine.

Concur on the rock solid comment. We use Azure Devops with git repos, lots of pipelines using self hosted or Microsoft hosted agents. There was an issue with Microsoft hosted agents a few months ago, but that didn't last long, and is the only issue in my memory.

I do prefer github interface over azure devops.

Re: An update on GitHub availability

#229

Post by jcgrillo »

latexr wrote: post #46
mathgeek wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While they contributed, they were still following the market trend anyway. If they weren't letting folks use it directly, other companies would have (and are).

> they were still following the market trend anyway. They started the trend with Copilot. > If they weren't letting folks use it directly There is a chasm of difference between “letting you use it” and “forcing it down your throat”. Microsoft is doing the latter, not the former. Copilot is annoyingly present by default at every step on GitHub.

They should have just called it Clippy and revived the animated avatar.

Re: An update on GitHub availability

#230

Post by zamalek »

consumer451 wrote: post #222
zamalek wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the one!

Amazing read. Thanks to both of you for finding that. > I later researched this further and found that no one at Microsoft, not a single soul, could articulate why up to 173 agents were needed to manage an Azure node, what they all did, how they interacted with one another, what their feature set was, or even why they existed in the first place. This reads like a description of the SLS-based (aka Senate Launch System…

Large orgs aim to produce some type of output. Their entire existence stems from a "perverse incentive."[1] Governments produce bills and laws, corps produce short-term profits, etc. I am pretty sure that preventing this type of waste consumes significantly more energy than creating the waste - e.g. the agile manifesto, the rework book.

Jobs was probably a good example of this. In my opinion, his image of an innovator is vastly exaggerated. What he did do well was to not invent things. E.G. liquid glass would have never seen the light of day under him: he was adept at saying "no" and preventing waste - Apple is now at the whims of anyone with the next stupid idea, the ideal example of wasteful behavior.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive

Post reply on HN