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

781–790 of 853 posts

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#781

Post by palata »

gaigalas wrote: post #763
palata wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

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

Heard of Meta torrenting copyrighted material? What kind of trouble did they get into?

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#782

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#783

Post by LtWorf »

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.

> later moved to GitHub

And had to live with their constant outages :)

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#784

Post by zoobab »

Git was supposed to be "distributed", but we ended up with a central HTTP hub.

Can't we switch to something more advanced in terms of protocols (like one that always maintain 3 copies, and where people can give ressources (cpu/bandwidth/memory) in the forms of tokens)?

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#785

Post by arw0n »

xenator wrote: post #716
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

We use Gitlab for CI/CD and tbh it is amazing. Simple, predictable, debuggable.

This whole thread is various people saying "[This] is trash, [that] is awesome", with the next person claiming the opposite. I suspect most people with strong negative opinions here know enough to have felt the pain, and not enough to be able to properly reason about the system.

I've worked with Github Actions, Gitlab-CI and CircleCI in the last 10 years, and they've all been such an improvement over Jenkins, or god forbid, CVS with manual deployments, that I'm generally just counting my blessings.

For me the pain only came when not adhering to KISS. All the mentioned VCS are pretty much feature complete and only really differ on meta-topics (cost, license, lock-in) or niche topics (Actions marketplace, matrix builds, SSH on Runners). I've not yet run into an issue that would have actually blocked me, because there's always sh to fall back to in case of a bug or missing feature.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#786

Post by sceptic123 »

sytse wrote: post #217
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…

In case you're considering moving to GitLab we currently have no plans that I'm aware of to pay from bringing your own runners. Happy to answer any questions.

Why are the self-hosted plans so expensive? Such a high bar to go from free to paid.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#787

Post by ericzundel »

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…

> Now it is paying money for running their software on your own hardware.

(facepalm)

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#788

Post by keepamovin »

Hamuko wrote: post #93

Possibly a good time to remind people that the default value of jobs. .timeout-minutes is 360 (minutes), meaning that your hanging job will cost $0.72 before it times out. https://docs.github.com/en/actions/reference/workflows-and-a...

I learned this lesson the hard way recently. I'm on the 50k minutes plan and burned through my entire monthly allowance plus a $100 overage budget in about two weeks.

My mistake was a combination of triggering workflows on every push, using macOS runners (which I didn't realize had a 10x multiplier compared to Linux), and forgetting to set aggressive timeouts.

I'm sharing this because the support experience was actually the highlight. I opened a ticket expecting to just eat the cost, but they sent a detailed breakdown of my usage/mistakes the next day. Even though it was 100% my error (tho I used to think macOS runners were only 3x? True, did that change? anyway), they gave me a $50 coupon to offset the overage. Amidst the pricing discussions, I think it's worth noting that their support team is still very human and responsive.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#789

Post by JonChesterfield »

gheltlkckfn wrote: post #638
otterley wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't work for Microsoft (in fact, I work for a competitor), and I think it's totally reasonable to charge for workflow executions. It's not like they're free to build, operate, and maintain.

Well, they provide it for free for the fee tier. And has been for ages. Perhaps they shouldn’t provide rugpull services if they cannot afford it.

Microsoft pleading poverty doesn't really fly

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#790

Post by JonChesterfield »

Someone1234 wrote: post #463

I really enjoy how they list the price PER MINUTE to make it sound like this isn't absurdly expensive. A lot of people leave their self-hosted runners running 24/7 because, after all, they're self-hosted. This is $2.88/day, $86.4/month, $1051.2/year. For them to do essentially nothing. Most notably, this is the same price as their hosted "Linux 1-core" on a per-minute basis. Meaning they're charging you the same for…

Per machine. Definitely more than one machine here.
Post reply on HN