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

571–580 of 853 posts

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#571

Post by wiml »

no_wizard wrote: post #304
amarant wrote: post #161

Getting acquired by Microsoft is a death sentence for any product. The only variable is how long after acquisition before they gut it. It's almost never right away. GitHub was acquired 7 years ago, but it started showing symptoms perhaps 2 years ago. With this I think it's clear the wound was fatal. GitHub will stumble on for a few more years with ever-decreasing quality, before going the way of Skype. So, I guess we…

The exodus from GitHub has not begun, as far as I can tell. They seem to care much less about free users than in the past but businesses still flock to it. GitLab is the only other platform I’ve seen in the workplace of anywhere I worked, with the exception of a big tech company I worked at. They had both GitHub enterprise and an internally maintained platform which was being phased out. if I recall correctly it base…

I've seen a small but increasing trickle of open source projects leaving github for free(libre) alternatives lately. It's not a stampede but I'd say the exodus is on its way.

The considerations for commercial users leaving github are probably pretty different, so perhaps they'll stay.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#572

Post by eudamoniac »

wiether wrote: post #306
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because if we follow this line of thought, then datacenters are useless. Most people could perfectly host their services locally. There are a rather lot of people who do argue that? Like, I actually agree that non-local CI is useful, but this is a poor argument for it.

I'm aware of people arguing for self-hosting some services for personal use. I'm not aware of people arguing for self-hosting team or enterprise services.

Well, they are. Selling the team or enterprise a license to do just that is a rather large part of many businesses.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#573

Post by codethief »

pornel wrote: post #380
esseph wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GitLab CI is quite good. Have been using it for several years.

I can't tolerate it. The split between tag and branch pipelines seems like intentional obfuscation with no upsides (you can't build non-latest commit from a branch, and when you use a tag to select the commit, GitLab intentionally hides all branch-related info, and skips jobs that depend on branch names). "CI components" are not really components, but copy-paste of YAML into global state. Merging of jobs merges objec…

Agreed. I worked with Gitlab CI on the daily from 2021 till 2024 and I started curating a diary of bugs and surprising behavior I encountered in Gitlab.

No matter what I did, every time I touched our CI pipeline code I could be sure to run into yet another Gitlab bug.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#574

Post by junon »

I just convinced the team to switch to GitHub Actions self hosted for various reasons, but one of them being cost.

This is an insult to anyone who bought into GitHub. It's an insult to all of us who have been doing OSS there for years. This is how you kill your business and any loyalty or trust in your brand.

What a disaster.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#575

Post by AJRF »

hugs wrote: post #319
featherless wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a solo Founder who recently invested in self-hosted build infrastructure because my company runs ~70,000 minutes/month, this change is going to add an extra $140/month for hardware I own . And that's just today; this number will only go up over time. I am not open to GitHub extracting usage-based rent for me using my own hardware. This is the first time in my 15+ years of using GitHub that I'm seriously evaluating…

feels like a new generation is learning what life is like when microsoft has a lot of power. (tl;dr: they try to use it.)

I was born in 1993. I kind of heard lots of rumbling about Microsoft being evil as I grew up, but I wasn't fully understanding of the anti trust thing.

It used to suprise me that people saw cool tech from Microsoft (like VSCode) and complain about it.

I now see the first innings of a very silly game Microsoft are going to start playing over the next few years. Sure, they are going to make lots of money, but a whole generation of developers are learning to avoid them.

Thanks for trying to warn us old heads!

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#576

Post by AJRF »

I was born in 1993. I kind of heard lots of rumbling about Microsoft being evil as I grew up, but I wasn't fully understanding of the anti trust thing.

It used to suprise me that people saw cool tech from Microsoft (like VSCode) and complain about it.

I now see the first innings of a very silly game Microsoft are going to start playing over the next few years. Sure, they are going to make lots of money, but a whole generation of developers are learning to avoid them.

Thanks for trying to warn us old heads!

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#577

Post by bbdrummer »

let us open a petition to urge M$ to also charge us for git commands: - git clone: 0.10$ - git commit: 0.001$ * number of files - git pull: 0.01$ - git push: 0.0175$ * numbers of commits * number of files - git merge: 1.25$ - git merge --squash: 2.00$

a nice feature would be if they limit the number of branches, too: - 5 branches: contact enterprise sales

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#578

Post by everyflavourvms »

I haven't used Actions in a professional context so am just wondering (and this might help coming up with arguments should $c-suite start requiring a move): is a "runner" equivalent to an executor slot in Jenkins? As an example, we currently have some builders with 20 executor slots and they might all be orchestrating test runs in parallel (these do not consume much CPU as all they are doing is instructing _other_ VMs, created on the fly, to do the actual work). Would that count as 20 runners in Github Actions, hence costing $0.002/minute times 20?

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#579

Post by paulryanrogers »

everyflavourvms wrote: post #578

I haven't used Actions in a professional context so am just wondering (and this might help coming up with arguments should $c-suite start requiring a move): is a "runner" equivalent to an executor slot in Jenkins? As an example, we currently have some builders with 20 executor slots and they might all be orchestrating test runs in parallel (these do not consume much CPU as all they are doing is instructing _other_ VM…

Each GHA runner gets its own VM. So every minute those are running you're billed. The runners do work independently which can save wall time.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#580

Post by puglr »

teach wrote: post #92
thewisenerd wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it'd be great if they can couple this with an SLA for GitHub actions so we won't have to end up paying as much.. (ofc, that'd only mean they stop updating the status page, so eh)

For what it's worth, they already fail to update the status page. We had an "outage" just this morning where jobs were waiting 10+ minutes for an available runner -- resolved after half an hour or so but nothing was ever posted https://downdetector.com/status/github/

Last week (Sunday to Sunday) I had a repo running a lot of cron workflows 24/7. After like 4 or 5 days I exceeded the free limits (Pro plan) and so set up self hosted runners.

After like day 2 my workflows would take 10-15 minutes past their trigger time to show up and be queued. And switching to the self hosted runners didn't change that. Happens every time with every workflow, whether the workflow takes 10 seconds or 10 minutes.

Post reply on HN