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

731–740 of 853 posts

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#731

Post by Cthulhu_ »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #654
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…

> 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.

And I hope ours does too. We're on Gitlab with runners on AWS at the moment, and the overhead is huge. Thousands of working hours spent on setting up and maintaining the infrastructure (even if it's code and probably a fraction of what our own datacenter would involve), millions in costs, hundreds of jobs spinning up to do jobs.

But also, many hours spent building jobs and the like that are off-the-shelf on Github Actions.

This is the main issue though, it feels like doing anything but what the largest companies offer just costs more time and money. It reminds me of the decades long push to move away from Microsoft, only for e.g. the office 365 offering to show up and make everyone's (software, account management) work easier and cheaper, forever.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#732

Post by [deleted] »

sublimefire wrote: post #725
madog wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#733

Post by Cthulhu_ »

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...

That's down to culture and (self) discipline, not tools.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#734

Post by [deleted] »

NamlchakKhandro wrote: post #686
Schnitz wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GitHub isn’t even good, it’s just the mediocre default everybody uses. PRs were fantastic and the best thing ever - 15 years ago!

100% don't understand why people think github actions are terrible. everything else is trash. Github Actions changed the landscape. They're composable. The only two other things that come close is Concourse.CI and CircleCi.... and circle-ci is 100% trash

[deleted]

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#735

Post by homebrewer »

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.

Selfhosting gitea is trivial, I'm saying this as someone who has been doing it at work for almost 6 years. Our experience has recently prompted another org (run by people we know) to move off GitHub, they also seem to be happy.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#737

Post by hexbin010 »

Kwpolska wrote: post #285
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…

If Microsoft had not acquired GitHub, there would not be GitHub Actions. GitHub Actions is a mediocre knock-off of Azure Pipelines, and it was launched after the acquisition.

Azure Pipeline wasn't mediocre?

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#738

Post by solatic »

larkost wrote: post #168
bdbdbdb wrote: post #120

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

GitHub has still been managing the orchestration and monitoring of runs that you run on your own (or other cloud) hardware. They have just decided that they are no longer going to do this for free. So the question becomes: is $0.002/minute a good price for this. I have never run GitHub Actions, so I am going to assume that experience on other, similar, systems applies. So if your job takes an hour to build and run th…

> GitHub has still been managing the orchestration and monitoring of runs that you run on your own (or other cloud) hardware. They have just decided that they are no longer going to do this for free.

This argument is disingenuous. Companies pay GitHub per seat for access to PR functionality etc. What's next, charging per repository? Because of a decision to no longer provide the repositories "for free"? It's not for free, you're paying already, it's included in the per-seat pricing. If you charge per seat then sometimes there are users who hardly use it and sometimes there are users who use it a lot. The per-seat pricing model is supposed to make the service profitable overall regardless of the usage levels of individual users.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#739

Post by mintflow »

This sucks, it make me feel so silly after decide to move back to github self hosted runners just because I do not want to run act on a remote ARM64 server.

I was just using act (https://github.com/nektos/act) on my local server to build the X64 packages for my project, since I want to streamline it with ARM64 support, I migrated to the github self hosted runners.

This is really ridiculous, is M$ really lack that money just to schedule the Jobs running not in there infra?

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#740

Post by sunnyday_002 »

ornornor wrote: post #704
NamlchakKhandro wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% don't understand why people think github actions are terrible. everything else is trash. Github Actions changed the landscape. They're composable. The only two other things that come close is Concourse.CI and CircleCi.... and circle-ci is 100% trash

Versioning sucks (the references are mutable), debugging sucks, you cant run them locally.

Pin the action's version via a digest and use Renovate for updates.

You can run all your CI locally if you don't embed your logic into the workflows, just use CI for orchestation. Use an env manager(Mise, Nix etc) to install tooling(you'll get consistency across your team & with CI) and call out to a task runner(scripts, Make, Task etc).

Post reply on HN