Microsoft are really sweating GitHub now aren't they? It wouldn't be so bad if it improving but there is certainly a perception that it is costing more for a poorer product, irrespective of the new features they're layering on.
Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
481–490 of 853 posts
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#482Earlier quoted context omitted.
It never left
It actually kind of did for a lot of people. Streaming was cheap, available, and convenient. Now it's none of those three. Once again, choosing not to pirate is just an objectively wrong choice. It's a worse experience, with worse quality, worse availability, and at a higher price tag.
> Choosing not to pirate is just an objectively wrong choice. It's a worse experience, with worse quality, worse availability, and at a higher price tag.
Choosing not to pirate and not to consume simultaneously is not necessarily a wrong choice. A difficult one? Yes. But I propose that it could be beneficial for your mental (and maybe physical) health.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#483Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is absolutely bananas; for my own CI workflow I'll have to pay $140+/month now just to run my own hardware.
Am I right in assuming it’s not the amount of payment but the transition from $0 to paying a bill at all? I’m definitely sure it’s saving me more than $140 a month to have CI/CD running and I’m also sure I’d never break even on the opportunity cost of having someone write or set one up internally if someone else’s works - and this is the key - just as well. But investment in CI/CD is investing in future velocity. The…
Have you ever set up GitHub Actions? The outcome is brittle because of their platform, not because of my inability to do CI.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#484This seems backwards. Why charge for me to run the thing myself instead of them?
Because they make money from charging way over cost price for per-minute CI runners, and they don't want people using much much cheaper alternative providers.
They don't care about people actually self-hosting. They care about people "self hosting" with these guys:
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#485Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they know Forgejo is starting to get attention from major players and thus becoming competitive, and hosting your own CI infrastructure will make completely moving away from GitHub all that easier - If you don't really care about the metadata all it pretty much takes is moving git repositories with their history. Or shortly summarized: lock in through pricing. Pretty sure this will explode straight in their f…
[flagged]
Inclusivity and democratic governance of a project is a strike to you? Seems like perhaps your hat is showing...
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#486I really enjoy how they list the price PER MINUTE to make it sound like this isn't absurdly expensive. A lot of people leave their self-hosted runners running 24/7 because, after all, they're self-hosted. This is $2.88/day, $86.4/month, $1051.2/year. For them to do essentially nothing. Most notably, this is the same price as their hosted "Linux 1-core" on a per-minute basis. Meaning they're charging you the same for…
> For them to do essentially nothing.
Orchestration, logging, caching, result storage.
It's not nothing. Whether it's worth it to you is a value judgement, and having run a bunch of different CI systems I'd say this is still at least competitive.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#487Earlier quoted context omitted.
After self hosting our builds ended up so fast, that we were actually waiting for was GitHub scheduling our agents, rather than it being the job running. It sucked a bit, because we'd optimized it so much, but we on 90th percentile saw that it took 20-30 seconds for github to schedule the jobs as they should. Measured from when the commit hit the branch, to the webhook begin sent.
My company uses GitHub, GitLab, and Jenkins. We'll soon™ be migrating off of GitLab in favor of GitHub because it's a Microsoft shop and we get some kind of discount on GitHub for spending so much other money with Microsoft. Scheduling jobs, actually getting them running, is virtually instant with GitLab but it's slow AF for GitHub for no discernable reason.
lmao I just realized on this forum writing this way might sound like I own something. To be clear, I don't own shit. I typically write "my employer", and should have here.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#488Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait.. is this how they're billing it?? Not the duration of runs??
It is duration of runs. He was just highlighting the absurde cost if you were to run it 24/7 like some people with their own self hosted runners do.
I am not understanding something.
If its the price of runs, then its not always running.
If its price of the agent to exist, then thats not paying per runs- then you’re right that people tend to leave their runners online 24/7- but I’ve never worked anywhere that had workers building 24/7.
Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions
#489Seriously. They're charging me for using MY cpus? Forgejo incoming testing period..
A lot of server software does that. People were paying absurd prices for fast Xeons to save on their Oracle bills.