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

GitHub: Git operation failures

githubstatus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 335 posts

Re: GitHub: Git operation failures

#291

Post by tombert »

andrewstuart2 wrote: post #271
bovermyer wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced of your first point. Just because something seems difficult to avoid given the current context does not mean it was the only path available. Your second point is a little disingenuous. Yes, Microsoft and Windows have been wildly successful from a cultural adoption standpoint. But that's not the point I was trying to argue.

My first comment is simply pointing out that there's always a #1 in anything you can rank. Windows happened to be what won. And I learned how to use a computer on Windows. Do I use it now? No. But I learned on it as did most people whose parents wanted a computer.

The comment you were replying to was about Microsoft.

Even if Windows weren't a dogshit product, which it is, Microsoft is a lot more than just an operating system. In the 90's they actively tried to sabotage any competition in the web space, and held web standards back by refusing to make Internet Explorer actually work.

Re: GitHub: Git operation failures

#292

Post by h4kunamata »

amazingman wrote: post #285
h4kunamata wrote: post #284

With Microsoft (Behind GitHub) going full AI mode, expected things to get worse. I worked for one of the largest company in my country, they had "catch-up" with GitHub and it is not longer about GitHub as you folks are used to but AI aka CoPilot. We are seeing major techs such as but not limited to Google, AWS and Azure going under after making public that their code is 30% AI generated (Google). Even Xbox(Microsoft)…

I didn't see a case made for self-hosting as the better option, instead I see that proposition being assumed true. Why would it be better for my company to roll its own CI/CD?

I worked at a bank that self-hosted GitLab/runners.

As the AI bubble goes sideways, you don't know how your company data is being held, CoPilot uses GitHub to train its AI for instance. Yes, the big company I work for had a clause to forbids GitHub from using the company's repo from AI training.

How many companies can afford having a dedicated GitHub team to speak to?? How many companies read the contracts or have any saying??

Not many really.

Yeah sure, cloud is easier, you just pay the bills, but at what cost??

Re: GitHub: Git operation failures

#293

Post by drykjdryj »

macintux wrote: post #275
Aperocky wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't they halting all work to migrate to azure? Does not sound like an easy thing to do and feels quite easy to cause unexpected problems.

I recall the Hotmail acquisition and the failed attempts to migrate the service to Windows servers.

Yes, this is not the first time github trying to migrate to azure. It's like the fourth time or something.

Re: GitHub: Git operation failures

#294

Post by drykjdryj »

parliament32 wrote: post #145
ElijahLynn wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just lose the "hub" of connecting others and providing a way to collaborate with others with rich discussions.

All of those sound achievable by email, which, coincidently, is also decentralized.

Email at a company is very not decentralized. Most use Microsoft 365, also hosted in azure, i.e. the same cloud as github is trying to host its stuff in.

Re: GitHub: Git operation failures

#295

Post by solid_fuel »

stinkbeetle wrote: post #262
HardwareLust wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's money, of course. No one wants to pay for resilience/redundancy. I've launched over a dozen projects going back to 2008, clients simply refuse to pay for it, and you can't force them. They'd rather pinch their pennies, roll the dice and pray.

> It's money, of course. 100% > No one wants to pay for resilience/redundancy. I've launched over a dozen projects going back to 2008, clients simply refuse to pay for it, and you can't force them. They'd rather pinch their pennies, roll the dice and pray. Well, fly by night outfits will do that. Bigger operations like GitHub will try to do the math on what an outage costs vs what better reliability costs, and optimi…

> Bigger operations like GitHub will try to do the math on what an outage costs vs what better reliability costs, and optimize accordingly.

Used to, but it feels like there is no corporate responsibility in this country anymore. These monopolies have gotten so large that they don't feel any impact from these issues. Microsoft is huge and doesn't really have large competitors. Google and Apple aren't really competing in the source code hosting space in the same way GitHub is.

Re: GitHub: Git operation failures

#296

Post by hotsauceror »

codethief wrote: post #236
Lammy wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything old is new again. https://www.zdnet.com/article/ms-moving-hotmail-to-win2000-s... https://jimbojones.livejournal.com/23143.html

From the second link: > In 2002, the amusement continued when a network security outfit discovered an internal document server wide open to the public internet in Microsoft's supposedly "private" network, and found, among other things, a whitepaper[0] written by the hotmail migration team explaining why unix is superior to windows. Hahaha, that whitepaper is pure gold! [0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20040401182755/…

And 25 years later, a significant portion of the issues in that whitepaper remain unresolved. They were still shitting on people like Jeffrey Snover who were making attempts to provide more scalable management technologies. Such a clown show.

Re: GitHub: Git operation failures

#297

Post by brokenmachine »

Conscat wrote: post #200
mandus wrote: post #87

Good thing git was designed as a decentralized revision control system, so you don’t really need GitHub. It’s just a nice convenience

I'm on HackerNews because I can't do my job right now.

I'm on HN because I don't want to do my job right now.

Re: GitHub: Git operation failures

#298

Post by collingreen »

stinkbeetle wrote: post #262
HardwareLust wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's money, of course. No one wants to pay for resilience/redundancy. I've launched over a dozen projects going back to 2008, clients simply refuse to pay for it, and you can't force them. They'd rather pinch their pennies, roll the dice and pray.

> It's money, of course. 100% > No one wants to pay for resilience/redundancy. I've launched over a dozen projects going back to 2008, clients simply refuse to pay for it, and you can't force them. They'd rather pinch their pennies, roll the dice and pray. Well, fly by night outfits will do that. Bigger operations like GitHub will try to do the math on what an outage costs vs what better reliability costs, and optimi…

> Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply it by the probable rate of failure, B, then multiply it by the result of the average out of court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

https://youtu.be/SiB8GVMNJkE

Re: GitHub: Git operation failures

#299

Post by Tadpole9181 »

suddenlybananas wrote: post #243
aeldidi wrote: post #238

I'm becoming concerned with the rate at which major software systems seem to be failing as of late. For context, last year I only logged four outages that actually disrupted my work; this quarter alone I'm already on my fourth, all within the past few weeks. This is, of course, just an anecdote and not evidence of any wider trend (not to mention that I might not have even logged everything last year), but it was enou…

To be deliberately provocative, LLMs are being more and more widely used.

To be deliberately provocative, so is offshoring work.

Re: GitHub: Git operation failures

#300

Post by paulddraper »

macintux wrote: post #274
lopatin wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that it's all money. That's why it's always DNS right? > No one wants to pay for resilience/redundancy These companies do take it seriously, on the software side, but when it comes to configurations, what are you going to do: Either play it by ear, or literally double your cloud costs for a true, real prod-parallel to mitigate that risk. It looks like even the most critical and prestigious companies in the wo…

> Either play it by ear, or literally double your cloud costs for a true, real prod-parallel to mitigate that risk. There's also the problem that doubling your cloud footprint to reduce the risk of a single point of failure introduces new risks: more configuration to break, new modes of failure when both infrastructures are accidentally live and processing traffic, etc. Back when companies typically ran their own dat…

Complexity breeds bugs.

Which is why the “art” of engineering is reducing complexity while retaining functionality.

Post reply on HN