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

721–730 of 853 posts

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#721

Post by officialchicken »

tyre wrote: post #681
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> learn from our mistakes and convince our teams and management to use community-maintained, libre alternatives Every company I've been at that tried to self-host something like GitLab, later moved to GitHub. Nobody in business cares if it's open source/free software. They care about managed hosting, centralized services, invoicing, etc. DIY is great for hobbyists and the cash-strapped.

Yeah I can't see a better alternative to GitHub. OSS can build truly incredible libraries and frameworks. User facing products? ehhhhh not so much. GitHub has gotten worse over the years but it's not like there's some gold standard open source alternative. And remember, early GH was filled with a pretty amazing group of developers and open source advocates. If the counter is that, instead of buying github, we could h…

Funny how Microsoft products tend to instill blindness over time; refocusing on git hooks (and not the UI) can offer some perspective.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#722

Post by akshitgaur2005 »

FinnKuhn wrote: post #715
oxalorg wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At work we've started switching to codeberg (which uses forgejo) and honestly it's a breath of fresh air compared to GitHub. It's blazing fast compared to GitHub and has feature parity with our needs.

Not an option for the majority of companies as it only allows open source repositories as far as I'm aware.

Tangled.org

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#723

Post by IshKebab »

ghthor wrote: post #598
novok wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a few like buildkite

Buildkite is so dope; love them

Their website is terrible though. Weird geeky interface, and I could only find reams and reams of gushing copy about how great they are. Nothing concrete about why.

Also quite expensive!

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#724

Post by olafmol »

benced wrote: post #583
olafmol wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CircleCI does only charge for self-hosted runners generated egress and/or artifact storage: "Any Network Egress to CircleCI will be charged. At this current time, this includes CircleCI Caches, Workspaces, and Artifacts and will be charged at the normal rate according to your Usage Controls. The only network traffic that will result in billing is accrued through restoring caches and workspaces, and downloading artifa…

CircleCI charges for concurrent job runs (which include self-hosted runs), no? They (you, I guess) obfuscate that by saying you get "Unlimited" if you take the "Talk to sales" route but that's not the same as not charging.

It's not obfuscated. The free plan gives you a max of 5 concurrent self-hosted runners. If you need more you can upgrade your plan: https://circleci.com/pricing/#comparison-table

There simply is no free lunch, somewhere someone needs to spend effort and time on managing the orchestration layer for the runners, and there is also network traffic and storage in play that costs money. If you need a future-proof CI/CD platform, it takes some investment. I agree that the Github "pay per minute" approach doesn't feel right, most people would probably find a "pay per orchestration job" or something more acceptable.

Anyway, there are alternatives out there :)

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#725

Post by sublimefire »

madog wrote: post #719
ablob wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without trying to sound snarky: What is the fancy alternative you are suggesting to pull requests?

Something like Gerrit. Instead of carefully crafting a logical series of patches that are all well documented with commit messages, PRs are just garbage filled diff soup of "fix typo" commits. I hate it. It's hard to review and seems to be based on putting the least amount of effort into proposing changes to the code. See https://gist.github.com/thoughtpolice/9c45287550a56b2047c631...

Well but this is controllable, i.e. it is people who choose to do this not the platform. Very much an internal design choice.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#726

Post by akshitgaur2005 »

eduardogarza wrote: post #136

This is my first comment on HN despite being a user for over a decade -- this is one of the most outrageous pricing changes I've encountered - I couldn't believe it when I read the email earlier (I run self-hosted runners). Anyone using GitLab or any other VCM that you'd recommend? I'm absolutely done with Github. Or is everything else just as bad?

tangled.org is up and coming and uses ATProto!

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#727

Post by John23832 »

Arcuru wrote: post #2

> We are introducing a $0.002 per-minute Actions cloud platform charge for all Actions workflows across GitHub-hosted and self-hosted runners. Charging for self-hosted runners is an interesting choice. That's the same cost as their smallest hosted runners [1] [1] - https://docs.github.com/en/billing/reference/actions-runner-...

enshittification

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#728

Post by palata »

gaigalas wrote: post #473
palata wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I get to read all your code and use it for training my AI, right?

My projects are public anyway. If you respect the license and make the AI comply to valid license reuse, I'm game.

> My projects are public anyway.

My point was that they profit from accessing your code, which is why they made it free in the first place. Now they make you pay because they believe they will make more profit. But they certainly weren't losing money before.

> If you respect the license and make the AI comply to valid license reuse

I think that the de facto situation is that AI does not have to know about licences or copyright at all. If they hack your computer to train their AI, the illegal part is that they hacked your computer, not that they trained their AI with the stolen data.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#729

Post by Lapsa »

Madmallard wrote: post #697
throwaway150 wrote: post #455

It is us, developers, who convinced our management to purchase GitHub Enterprise to be our forge. We didn't pay any heed to the values of software freedom. A closed source, proprietary software had good features. We saw that and convinced our management to purchase it. Never mind what cost it would impose in the future when the good software gets bad owners. Never mind that there were alternatives that were inferior…

I don't understand how once these companies go down the user hostile hell-hole... like why do we allow them to keep operating? How is there not a collective decision to dissolve them?

haven't logged into GitHub since they added mandatory 2FA

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#730

Post by Faaak »

paulddraper wrote: post #342
golovast wrote: post #131

I got contacted by our rep a couple weeks ago, who informed me of this news. I thought it was a disaster and it really pissed me off. The rep couldn't even explain the reasoning well. It basically summed up to "because we can" and "where are you going to go?". He was shocked to find out that I didn't like it. We currently self-host on kubernets/aws. The thing that really got to me isn't the new charge per se. It's th…

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]…

Yet it works perfectly which forgejo/gitea (uses the act runner)
Post reply on HN