Bye, Bye GitHub

ralph84•8 minutes ago

What frontier model did GitHub train? All of the frontier labs scraped GitHub like they scraped everything else. While GitHub has certainly tried to profit from AI, directing ire at GitHub for frontier labs training on public code seems misplaced.

onesandofgrain•3 minutes ago

Welcome, i left 2 years ago, i'm surprised more haven't.

I use https://sharemygit.com to share repos around.

dabedee•21 minutes ago

I agree with the sentiment of the post, and Github deserves every bit of it. Tried codeberg (which uses forgejo) and I am very happy with it personally.

multisport•about 2 hours ago

IME switching git providers is very hard, especially getting off of github. Most companies have insane numbers of integrations, automations, etc on top of GH. So yeah, its on us, but its also pretty simple algebra: does GH's downtime affect us more than the cost of switching? Most companies the answer is no.

When people ask why people aren't switching to Gitlab, ADO, Bitbucket, etc, I believe this is the reason.

iterance•3 minutes ago

90% uptime is abysmal. That degree of poor performance can easily cost astounding amounts of money. It's just harder to quantify than the cost of switching.

honr•12 minutes ago

This year, the migration projects I have worked on were some of the most fun. Migrations have changed from the death-by-1000-cuts that they were, to the which-AI-method-to-best-ensure-100%-fidelity. So, I don't believe the "very hard" part. Obviously it would involved recreating or reshaping many features that very involved in an integration to have a disruption-free move, but I think the complexity is manageable for most companies if they put in some effort.

ranger_danger•37 minutes ago

Most companies?

Do you have a source for that claim?

beanjuiceII•34 minutes ago

i can be the source for that claim

monkaiju•about 1 hour ago

Maybe for big companies that irresponsibly vendor-locked themselves, but I work at a SMB (~60 employees) and we switched to Forgejo in a couple days

guywithahat•about 1 hour ago

I would not call it irresponsible. If you have a big, long running project you're going to want to develop complex pipelines and build processes to help with development and testing. This will save a lot of time and create a more consistent workflow, but switching vendors can require redoing work that was built over years.

rogerrogerr•16 minutes ago

> you're going to want to develop complex pipelines and build processes to help with development and testing

Opinion: Complex build processes are great. Complex _pipelines_ are a trap. I'm in a position to see the output of a lot of teams at a very large company. The teams that have complex build processes _that they can run locally_, and then have some trivial CI yaml to run the build, are doing great.

The teams that designed their build around CI are brittle and eventually end up in a state where they can _only_ do some parts of their build on CI.

IME it's worth it to set very hard boundaries shaped like: (1) Everything needs to be able to be run locally (usually in a devcontainer), (2) CI config shall be stupid simple. If you have more than like two lines in a script section, it goes into a Tools/Build script file that must work locally and is just called in a one-line CI script.

#1 guarantees you can operate without CI, and #2 guarantees you can move CI providers trivially.

cyberax•10 minutes ago

If only we had a way to run code in a pre-defined isolated environment that can hide most of the differences of the actual hardware...

Oh, we do have Docker/Podman?

Then why not use _them_ to define your build pipelines? Bonus points: you can run them locally without tearing out your hair. And you can use normal scripting languages and task runners (taskfiles, good old makefiles, Ninja, etc.) for sequencing.

perching_aix•about 1 hour ago

I really do wonder if the disruptions caused by the outages are starting to match the disruptions caused by a migration (which at least has a foreseeable end to it, theoretically).

Like even with the "will somebody please think of the operational costs" aspect, I really do wonder if the good old lock-in extortion math actually still holds in GH's favor.

cdrnsf•22 minutes ago

I've had exactly zero issues hosting Forgejo. GitHub is only going to get worse.

luciandan•about 2 hours ago

So why no self-hosted GitLab then?

n3storm•about 2 hours ago

Gitea installs like a Breeze

thrill•about 2 hours ago

A vanilla git server works great too.

josefritzishere•about 1 hour ago

I blame Microslop

coolThingsFirst•30 minutes ago

It’s only fair when the big guy steals intellectual property from the small guy.

Bye, Bye GitHub

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion (23 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews