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

791–800 of 853 posts

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#791

Post by boppo1 »

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.

Blender does it

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#792

Post by uniq7 »

Lapsa wrote: post #729
Madmallard wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Same here, my commit history chart makes people think I suddenly died on October 21, 2023, going from all green to all white.

Bitbucket also implemented 2FA, but it's 100% optional, so I'm sticking with that for the moment.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#793

Post by boppo1 »

k4rli wrote: post #747
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…

I'm a contractor so have worked on a lot of different projects for different companies, big and small and also early startups. This is far from truth imo. It is very possible to only use (F)OSS. Github, AWS, Azure, Vercel are not at all more pleasant or easier to work with than on-prem Gitlab/gitea/codeberg/jenkins/k8s/kibana/prometheus/grafana. I could spend an hour and have a full setup done on physical or VPS to h…

>I could spend an hour and have a full setup done on physical or VPS to have 1) remote git hosting 2) pipelines running on changes 3) pipelines publishing images or some artifacts 4) automated deployment for these images/artifacts

This sounds like a week or two of work to me (I'm a novice though). You should write a guide.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#794

Post by MarsIronPI »

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.

How does Forgejo compare here? Would it be better or worse than Gitlab? How about a self-hosted Sourcehut instance?

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#795

Post by franktankbank »

alexellisuk wrote: post #700
gallexme wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run about 1 action a day taking 18h running on 2 runners One being self hosted 24gb ram 8 core ARM vps and one being a 64gb 13900k x86 dedicated server Now the GitHub pricing change definitely? costs more than both servers combined a month ... (They cost about 60$ together ) 3 step GitHub action builds around 1200 nix packages and derivations , but produces only around 50 lines of logs total if successful and maybe…

It sounds like you'd be better off self-hosting Jenkins. The other issue with GHA is they cap all runs at 6 hours. Despite what people say about "maintaining" Jenkins (whatever that means to them personally) - you can set it up in an IaaC way including the jobs. You can migrate/create jobs en masse via its API (I did this about 10 years ago for a large US company converting from what was then called TFS)

What problem does Jenkins solve? When we got jenkins working how we wanted it was a giant groovy script that was handling checkout manually.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#796

Post by parliament32 »

sakisv wrote: post #452
parliament32 wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does GitHub even make most of their money? Their compliance posture makes them a non-starter for any regulated industries (which is atypical for a Microsoft property, generally MS is the market leader for compliance in all of their products).

Given that a lot of places that deal with money use them, I find your comment quite interesting and would like to learn more :)

The easiest way is to compare GitHub's compliance report list with, say, Atlassian Bitbucket.

https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/organizat...

https://www.atlassian.com/trust/compliance/resources

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#797

Post by pferde »

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?

I deleted my account the day Microsoft acquisition was confirmed. If more people did that, maybe we wouldn't be here.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#798

Post by otterley »

JonChesterfield wrote: post #789
gheltlkckfn wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Nobody's pleading poverty here. It's a reasonable business decision to charge for value, just like the rest of the economy does.

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#799

Post by gaigalas »

palata wrote: post #781
gaigalas wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

What if they lost?

Open source license litigation is a thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation

Re: Pricing Changes for GitHub Actions

#800

Post by manquer »

rendaw wrote: post #718
manquer wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP means to say he has many jobs in the merge queue that the runners are always busy 24/7. This is not uncommon in some orgs - less number of concurrent runners, slow builds, loads of jobs because of automation or how hooks for the runners are setup. In the context of discussion that doesn't matter, OP's point distills to that they use minimum of 720 hours / month of orchestration time or some multiple of that on sel…

OP replied and clarified that that's not the case.

His workload is close to the more typical one i mentioned as scenario b. It will cost them $84/month.

For me, we do about 800,000 build minutes/month, for orchestration alone it is going to be $1600/month. In contrast the runner host we use (Namespace labs) cost $0.0015 / minute[1] which is less than orchestration cost for GH, that is just ridiculous.

---

[1] It is even worse, the first 250,000 minutes is fixed at $250, so the base is $0.001 /minute for the runner.

Post reply on HN