401–410 of 853 posts
Personally, I quite liked GitLab CI when I used it circa 2021-23. Just now I did a quick search and found this article^1 suggesting (even before this GH pricing change) Gitlab CI may be a better choice than Github Actions. 1. https://medium.com/@the_atomic_architect/github-vs-gitlab-20...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> charging for it should help make sure it continues to work It's there a particular reason you're extending the benefit of the doubt here? This seems like the classic playbook of making something free, waiting for people to depend on it, then charging for it, all in order to maximize revenue. Where does the idea that they're really doing this in order to deliver a more valuable service come from?
I appreciate being able to pay for a service I rely on. Using self-hosted runners, I previously paid nothing for Github Actions — now I do pay something for it. The price is extremely cheap and seems reasonable considering the benefits I receive. They've shown continued interest in investing in the product, and have a variety of things on their public roadmap that I'm looking forward to (including parallel steps) — h…
and you expect it to stay this way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://codeberg.org
This looks really nice actually! European non-profit is hitting some really good buttons for me! Thanks for the tip, I hadn't heard of codeberg before!
But other alternatives exist as well, like Sourcehut: https://sr.ht/
If this gives you pause, consider these hosted alternatives as another option: * Codeberg https://codeberg.org/ * Sourcehut https://sr.ht/ [1] [1] https://sourcehut.org/alpha-details/
Codeberg's uptime is so bad, that it actually makes GitHub look good. ~96.5% over last 2 weeks [1] [1]: https://status.codeberg.org/status/codeberg
But nothing they've done in the last few years has demonstrated improvement in this area. As the person with both purchasing and final authority on these things in my org, it's hard to stomach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Outrageous"? It's two tenths of a cent per minute. How much will it impact you, really, particularly relative to the cost of compute?
It's outrageous because self hosted runners are... self hosted. And the entire solution just sucks. It's bad, bad software. It barely works a lot of the time. The only reason they're doing this is because they can. Which is usually a really stupid reason. And here, it is. So, that's outrageous.
Sure, but there's a separate mechanism that you need to make it all work: the orchestration. Without that, you have only the capacity to run jobs -- it's potential energy, if you will, not doing real work.
That orchestrator thus provides real value. And it's not like it's free for them to build, operate, and maintain.
This is a serious issue. How is it possible for GitHub/Microsoft to charge me for using my own machine as a self-hosted GitHub Actions runner?
This is a serious issue. How is it possible for GitHub/Microsoft to charge me for using my own machine as a self-hosted GitHub Actions runner?
This seems totally unreasonable. How can they justify charging you based on usage when it's running on and using your resources?