2 ms·

It was worse before MS took over. But their status page displayed live metrics, it was more transparent, so people were less frustrated. As opposed to now, wher

It was worse before MS took over. But their status page displayed live metrics, it was more transparent, so people were less frustrated. As opposed to now, where the status dashboard is updated by a human. IMHO, the issue is not the unstability. I'm really concerned that so much of our software infrastructure relies on one single service owned by Microsoft.

gladiatr72 3y ago
You seem to have had a different pre ms github experience than I. Github didn't really embrace the Suck til it foisted Actions on the world. Gitlab had a lot of downtime for a few years (shockingly mostly to do with CI related mechs).
melx 3y ago
It was worse but I'm not sure people were less frustrated. Some outages back in 2012-2014 periods were so long that our dev team went for few pints to nearest pub.
- HeckFeck 3y ago
  Is reliability always a good thing? I could do with a few myself.
w4ffl35 3y ago
There are many github alternatives. Are you saying you'd prefer your ci/cd pipeline to be scattered across services, or that you'd like a github backup if it goes down? You could probably mirror your code on gitlab and host a Jenkins server on aws instead of relying a single point of failure. Personally I'll take the single point of failure downtime in exchange for lower maintenence
- acatton 3y ago
  There are many github alternatives, sure. But sofware is still centralized on github. I double dare you to "pip install", "cargo build", or "go get" without hitting github. Your project can be hosted on repo.or.cz, gitlab or codeberg, you will still need github to build it locally, or to build it on your self hosted CI. The solution is P2P git hosting. Dare I say magnet-links git repo urls?
  - w4ffl35 3y ago
    Ok this makes sense, thanks for the clarification.
handsclean 3y ago
I remember it very differently. I remember remarkably good reliability, to the point that HN would regularly laud GitHub for “doing it right” by investing heavily in infrastructure and reliability and being “boring”. I remember some GitHub leader or founder affirming that sentiment, that they’ve always felt their value proposition depends greatly on reliability. I remember it didn’t change as soon as MS took over, but a year or so later, and that for the first few years of diminishing reliability people would always point fingers at the MS takeover.

gladiatr72 3y ago

You seem to have had a different pre ms github experience than I. Github didn't really embrace the Suck til it foisted Actions on the world. Gitlab had a lot of downtime for a few years (shockingly mostly to do with CI related mechs).

melx 3y ago

It was worse but I'm not sure people were less frustrated. Some outages back in 2012-2014 periods were so long that our dev team went for few pints to nearest pub.

HeckFeck 3y ago
Is reliability always a good thing? I could do with a few myself.

w4ffl35 3y ago

There are many github alternatives. Are you saying you'd prefer your ci/cd pipeline to be scattered across services, or that you'd like a github backup if it goes down? You could probably mirror your code on gitlab and host a Jenkins server on aws instead of relying a single point of failure. Personally I'll take the single point of failure downtime in exchange for lower maintenence

acatton 3y ago
There are many github alternatives, sure. But sofware is still centralized on github. I double dare you to "pip install", "cargo build", or "go get" without hitting github. Your project can be hosted on repo.or.cz, gitlab or codeberg, you will still need github to build it locally, or to build it on your self hosted CI. The solution is P2P git hosting. Dare I say magnet-links git repo urls?
- w4ffl35 3y ago
  Ok this makes sense, thanks for the clarification.

handsclean 3y ago

I remember it very differently. I remember remarkably good reliability, to the point that HN would regularly laud GitHub for “doing it right” by investing heavily in infrastructure and reliability and being “boring”. I remember some GitHub leader or founder affirming that sentiment, that they’ve always felt their value proposition depends greatly on reliability. I remember it didn’t change as soon as MS took over, but a year or so later, and that for the first few years of diminishing reliability people would always point fingers at the MS takeover.