301–310 of 335 posts
Good thing git was designed as a decentralized revision control system, so you don’t really need GitHub. It’s just a nice convenience
You can commit, branch, tag, merge, etc and be just fine.
Now, if you want to share that work, you have to push.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really comparable at any compliance or security oriented business. You can't just zip the thing up and sftp it over to the server. All the zany supply chain security stuff needs to happen in CI and not be done by a human or we fail our dozens of audits
Why is it that we trust those zany processes more than each other again? Seems like a good place to inject vulnerabilities to me...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft is also convinced that its works are a net benefit for humanity, so I would take that with a grain of salt.
I think it would be pretty hard to argue against that point of view, at least thus far. If DOS/Windows hadn't become the dominant OS someone would have, and a whole generation of engineers cut their teeth on their parents' windows PCs.
GitHub is pretty easily the most unreliable service I've used in the past five years. Is GitLab better in this regard? At this point my trust in GitHub is essentially zero - they don't deserve my money any longer.
Another GitLab self-hosting user here, we've run it on Kubernetes for 6 years. It's never gone down for us, maybe an hour of downtime yearly as we upgrade Postgres to a new version.
Good thing git was designed as a decentralized revision control system, so you don’t really need GitHub. It’s just a nice convenience
For sure. You can commit, branch, tag, merge, etc and be just fine. Now, if you want to share that work, you have to push.
Yes you lose some convenience (like GitHub's pull requests UI can't be used, but you can temporarily use the other Git server's UI for that.
I think their point was that you're not fully locked in to GitHub. You have the repo locally and can mirror it on any Git remote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not exactly for this situation, but I've been thinking about distributed caching of web content. Even if a website is down, someone somewhere most likely has it cached. Why can't I read it from their cache? If I'm trying to reach a static image file, why do I have to get it from the source? I guess I want torrent DHT for the web.
That is genuinely interesting. But, let's put all "this nerd talk" into terms that someone in the average C-suite could understand. How can C-suite stock RSU/comp/etc be tweaked to make them give a crap about this, or security? --- Decades ago, I was a teenager and I realized that going to fancy hotel bars was really interesting. I looked old enough, and I was dressed well. This was in Seattle. I once overheard a low…
It's no coincidence that the clueless MBA who takes pride in knowing nothing about the business they're apart of proliferated during economic "spring time" -- low interest rates, genuine technological breakthroughs to capitalize on, early mover advantage, etc. When everyone is swimming in money, it's easier to get a slice without adequately proving why you deserve it.
Now we're in "winter." Interest rates are high, innovation is debatably slowing, and the previous early movers are having to prove their staying power.
All that to say: the bright side, I hope, of this pretty shitty time is that hopefully we don't _need_ to "put all this nerd talk into terms that someone in the average C-suite could understand," because hopefully the kinds of executives who are simultaneously building and running _tech companies_ and who are allergic to "nerd talk" will very simply fail to compete.
That's the free market (myth as it may often be in practice) at work -- those who are totally uninterested in the subject matter of their own companies aren't rewarded for their ignorance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think you'd get better uptime with your own solution? I doubt it. It would just be at a different time.
“Your own solution” should be that CI isn’t doing anything you can’t do on developer machines. CI is a convenience that runs your Make or Bazel or Just or whatever you prefer builds, that your production systems work fine without. I’ve seen that work first hand to keep critical stuff deployable through several CI outages, and also has the upside of making it trivial to debug “CI issues”, since it’s trivial to run the…
You should aim for this but there are some things that CI can do that you can't do on your own machine, for example running jobs on multiple operating systems/architectures. You also need to use CI to block PRs from merging until it passes, and for merge queues/trains to prevent races.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it would be pretty hard to argue against that point of view, at least thus far. If DOS/Windows hadn't become the dominant OS someone would have, and a whole generation of engineers cut their teeth on their parents' windows PCs.
If Microsoft hadn't tried to actively kill all its competition then there's a good chance that we'd have a much better internet. Microsoft is bigger than just an operating system, they're a whole corporation. Instead they actively tried to murder open standards [1] that they viewed as competitive and normalized the antitrust nightmare that we have now. I think by nearly any measure, Microsoft is not a net good. They…
A few decades back Microsoft were first to the prize with asynchronous JavaScript, Silverlight really was flash done better and still missed, a proper extension of their VB6/MFC client & dev experience out to the web would have gobbled up a generation of SaaS offerings, and they had a first in class data analysis framework with integrated REPL that nailed the central demands of distributed/cloud-first systems and systems configuration (F#). That on top of near perfect control of the document and consumer desktop ecosystems and some nutty visualization & storage capabilities.
Plug a few of their demos from 2002 - 2007 together and you’ve got a stack and customer experience we’re still hurting for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As long as you didn't go all in on GitHub Actions. Like my company has.
Do you think you'd get better uptime with your own solution? I doubt it. It would just be at a different time.
It just workz [;