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

761–770 of 853 posts

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#761

Post by falsedan »

naikrovek wrote: post #608
falsedan wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they charge you for artifacts and logs separately, already

Yep and the sky is blue and GitHub can charge for that too if they want to. I don’t make policy at GitHub and I don’t work at GitHub so go ask GitHub why they charge for infrastructure costs like any other cloud service. It has to do with the queueing and assignment of jobs which is not free. Why do they charge per minute? I have no idea, maybe it was easiest to do that given the billing infrastructure they already h…

I don't think you're responsible for anything more than your own comments.

I added some context that contradicts your assumption that the increased fees were to cover hosting/storage/scheduling costs.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#762

Post by kasey_junk »

spwa4 wrote: post #744
tyre wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Forge, Gitea, and git itself contains a cgi script with quite a bit of functionality. And of course, the way it is supposed to work, git-over-ssh, as in give committers Linux shell accounts on a shared machine, with the CGI script running for pretty pictures (Remember CGI? You know, "cloud functions" before such a thing existed) Huh, I should make an Apache plugin that launches docker exported containers uploaded int…

Why a shared machine? Git was “supposed” to work with email. Do that.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#763

Post by gaigalas »

palata wrote: post #728
gaigalas wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I think that the de facto situation is that AI does not have to know about licences or copyright at all.

That is simply not true.

Companies can get into legal trouble if they don't.

Copilot does that bookeeping:

https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/how-tos/get-code-suggesti...

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#764

Post by embedding-shape »

Nextgrid wrote: post #591
embedding-shape wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A purist approach like in scenario 1 leaves everyone poor. That depends, not always. Sometimes the employees of said company manages to contribute back upstream, on the dime of the company. If the "free software" they used and contributed to have a lot of users, it's certainly not "leaves everyone poor" but rather "helps everyone, beyond monetary gain". Sure, you can make the argument that it isn't that great for t…

Even purely from an altruist perspective I’d argue scenario 2 makes more sense as the resulting money can be used to fund a lot more open-source contributions.

It could, but would it? For-profit companies usually don't suddenly turn around and start funding FOSS, unless that was part of their core mission from the start. If a company aims to make as much money, then that tends to be the mission they stick with, for better or worse.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#765

Post by efreak »

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-...

It also seems odd that there's no discussion of using webhooks to replace the self-hosted runners for free, given that it would basically be working the same way. The only difference is who commits get attributed to, and where you go for logs and artifacts (these can probably ride along draft/prereleases or something)

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#766

Post by xinsight »

bigbuppo wrote: post #621
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…

Nearly 20 years ago, some VP at a security products company now owned by Broadcom threatened us during contract renewal with, "The price is what it is. Your contract is up in two weeks. What are you going to do? Move to a competing product?" We had it done with a week to spare.

Never underestimate the power of spite! :)

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#767

Post by benrutter »

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

I think I agree with you that:

- everything else is trash.

- Github Actions changed the landscape.

- They're composable.

And I still hate github actions! Aside from anything else, they have one major flaw, which is there is no good development/test loop for writing them.

If you write most of your CICD in some kind of script, then you can run it locally, and do some basic checks around environment etc before deploying.

If you write most of your CICD in github actions or any alternative, you will be doomed to push 100 commits with messages like "maybe be?", "hmmm. . ." before eventually squashing them all down when it turns out several hours later that you mispelt an environment variable.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#768

Post by darkwater »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #731
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.

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 Ac…

Well, what else can we say? Enjoy your unilateral price increases or features shoved down the throat (CoPilot anyone?), with exactly 0 extra money in your pocket. Unless you are a C-level, of course.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#769

Post by cprecioso »

joshstrange wrote: post #465
cprecioso wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I checked the WarpBuild website and got excited because the header in the menu says you have macOS Intel runners, but then you click through and it doesn't seem to be so? Right now at my company our biggest complaint are macOS Intel runners from GitHub which somehow take 15+ minutes to provision and are the slowest of the bunch.

I can assure you WarpBuild has Mac runners that work very well. When I first switched GH only offered 1 Mac runner and it was horribly slow. Literally cut my build times in half by changing 1 line in my workflow file to use the WB runner. Nowadays GH has more sizes by WB continues to beat them in price and performance. It’s highway robbery what GH charges for the crap they provide. I can highly recommend WarpBuild fo…

I was talking specifically of macOS Intel runners. The sibling comment from the founder confirmed they don't have them.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#770

Post by BadBadJellyBean »

Seattle3503 wrote: post #693
tetha wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kinda change also has some different gears turning in my head. At $0.002 / build-minute, some of our large software integration tests would cost us around 15 - 20 cents. Some of our ansible integration tests would be 5 - 10 cents - and we run like 50 - 100 of those per day. Some deployments might cost us a cent or two. Apples to oranges, naturally, but like this, our infra-jenkins master would pay for itself in…

> And I mean sure, everything is kinda janky on Jenkins, but everything falls into an expectable corridor of jank you get used to. This is kinda where I am. No one really feels like they are selling a premium "just works" product. Its all jank. So why it the jank I chose at the price I chose? At the moment I'm self hosting gitlab runners. Its jank. But it's free.

A while ago I set out to find a replacement for Jenkins. On prem with a comparable feature set. What I found out is that Jenkins is the worst apart from all the others.
Post reply on HN