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

Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

resources.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 853 posts

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#501

Post by jamesu »

QuiCasseRien wrote: post #437

More than 6 years users of OneDev (onedev.io). - Git repo - Ticketing, Kaban - Full helpdesk - Complete and full CI/CD - everything links via custom workflow - self hosted I still dont know why everyone hasn't switch yet to that banger.

I really wanted to like it but the UI always put me off. Also tending to prefer a more open development model these days. Thankfully at least for dev gitea and forgejo have both come a long way and the CI is pretty decent now (though they still dont have a gui workflow builder!).

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#502

Post by matthewmacleod »

some_furry wrote: post #315
matthewmacleod wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of this is “enshittification”? It’s just a company starting to charge for a formerly free service. Hardly seems like that aggressive a move.

From https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-platforms-cory-doctorow/ "Here is how platforms die: First, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die." We are on step 2: then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers .

It is not abuse to charge what amounts to a relatively small fee for a useful service.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#503

Post by matthewmacleod »

ok123456 wrote: post #379
matthewmacleod wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of this is “enshittification”? It’s just a company starting to charge for a formerly free service. Hardly seems like that aggressive a move.

They're squeezing their customers after locking in to juice their margins, having become a monopoly/monopsony. This is the classic enshitificaton playbook.

Nobody is locked in (unless they made some incredibly bad decisions) and this is a tiny fee in exchange for a useful service. I’m just baffled by the response to this.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#505

Post by featherless »

otterley wrote: post #462
featherless wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you feel that orchestration runs on a per-minute basis?

As long as they're reserving resources for your job during the period of execution, it does.

Charging people to maintain a row in a database by the minute is top-tier, I agree.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#506

Post by ozim »

mindcrash wrote: post #175
bdbdbdb wrote: post #120

This seems backwards. Why charge for me to run the thing myself instead of them?

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…

I would keep repos on GH but use Jenkins though.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#507

Post by paulddraper »

pxc wrote: post #414
paulddraper wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GitHub Actions runners are hard to self-host. The runner configuration and registration process is unnecessarily byzantine. [1] They can't cancel jobs cleanly. [2] There are consistency problems everywhere. [3] Their own documentations describes horrible things unless you use runners in JIT mode. Though JIT runners are not always removed after exit. If there is a worse self-hosted CI runner, I haven't yet met it. [1]…

And if you want any concurrency at all, you need 1 runner registration per concurrent job. And each runner needs its own user. And each runner requires a full and separate copy of the runner software, which is large (hundreds of megs) and self-updates.

You don't need your own user.

The rest is correct. (Though you can hardlink the installation.) And you can disable self-update, though it does it by default.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#508

Post by gabrielgio »

rileymat2 wrote: post #415
MrKitai wrote: post #317

Seriously. They're charging me for using MY cpus? Forgejo incoming testing period..

It’s not unheard of, similarish to many core licensing schemes. Like mssql.

Not the same thing. The equivalent would be mssql charging by web server connections to it.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#509

Post by manquer »

dijit wrote: post #488
Factor1177 wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

OP means to say he has many jobs in the merge queue that the runners are always busy 24/7.

This is not uncommon in some orgs - less number of concurrent runners, slow builds, loads of jobs because of automation or how hooks for the runners are setup.

In the context of discussion that doesn't matter, OP's point distills to that they use minimum of 720 hours / month of orchestration time or some multiple of that on self hosted runners running 24x7.

Github will now charge $84 extra per month for single self-hosted runner running 24x7 - i.e. that is the cost for 43,200 build minutes for only their orchestration alone.

In a more typical setup that is equivalent to say 5 self-hosted running running ~4.5 hours a day(i.e 144/hours/runner/month)

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#510

Post by mindcrash »

dijit wrote: post #494
mindcrash wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Representatives from the Dutch government recently had a chat with representatives from Forgejo because they are quite interested in migrating their SCM infrastructure from Github to Forgejo. And trust me, they are running a lot of public and private repositories. And there are many more orgs and govs throughout Europe doing similar things because there's a (growing) zeitgeist here that the Trump administration nor a…

Can confirm. I have seen this sentiment more and more, which is welcome to me as it’s a drum I have been banging for 15 years. I have never had so many empathetic conversations than I have recently.

Sounds familiar!

Everybody now is like "Hey, we can take something like Kubernetes which is open source and is backed by a worldwide community, and you know like OpenStack which is open source and is backed by a worldwide community and we can build our own computing platform and deploy services and online communities and stuff on top of that"

And I was like "Wait, you guys are realizing that NOW?!? I've been an activist and part of a movement urging you all to try and be less dependent on US Big Tech and focus more on decentralization for YEARS"

Like you I am really happy things seem to get rolling now, though :)

Post reply on HN