6 ms·

So much vague outrage over nothing. That CI system created by so called monkeys is the one of the best free CI service in the world. Not everyone has the millio

by nromiun 11mo ago

So much vague outrage over nothing. That CI system created by so called monkeys is the one of the best free CI service in the world. Not everyone has the millions of dollars like Zig Foundation to create their own CI servers. After that they appreciate GitHub Sponsors, but say it is now a complete liability just because a project leader left. What are the actual changes? Any new rule? But no, it is now a "liability" and we should accept it. Honestly speaking I like how big projects are exploring new hosting options. But there is no need to attack other platforms like this to promote your new host.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
sieabahlpark 11mo ago
[dead]
homebrewer 11mo ago
The only good thing about it is their very generous limits for "open source" projects (it doesn't even have to be free software AFAIK, just the source has to be visible to everyone). The CI service itself is an absolute trash fire caused by the usual Microsoft NIH, and if they have financial means not to deal with it anymore, I see no reason for them to waste their limited development time on dealing with it.
- nromiun 11mo ago
  They could have easily done that without all the insults.
  - Groxx 11mo ago
    I would agree if they weren't so clearly deserved. Calling shit out as being shit is fine.
    - nromiun 11mo ago
      Just because you think something is shit does not mean it becomes gospel for the rest of us. Millions of other people are fine with GitHub, respect their choice.
      - LtWorf 11mo ago
        He didn't insult the people who are still using github.
  - baq 11mo ago
    I agree it’s unprofessional, but at least we’re talking about GHA, even if tangentially, because there’s a lot to talk about and not much of it is good.
- ralph84 11mo ago
  Where else would the CI service for a Microsoft product be invented? NIH is a weird insult in this context. If Microsoft had instead acquired a CI service you’d be complaining about how they’re reducing competition.
  - SkiFire13 11mo ago
    > Where else would the CI service for a Microsoft product be invented? FYI Azure has its own CI service and that's pretty bad too.
  - s-lambert 11mo ago
    Microsoft had their own CI service and it existed before GitHub Actions did, it was renamed Azure Dev Ops but it existed before GitHub Actions and it was largely similar from what I remember.
- bytehowl 11mo ago
  >it doesn't even have to be free software AFAIK, just the source has to be visible to everyone With the implication that MS is free to harvest it for LLM training?
stabbles 11mo ago
The best free CI system in the world has macOS 15 runners running at 75% capacity due to a background process that consumes 100% CPU [1]. The problem is known to them since May but not fixed half a year later. [1] https://github.com/actions/runner-images/issues/13358 https://github.com/actions/runner-images/issues/13358
- nromiun 11mo ago
  So tell us where is the better free macOS CI provider? I would love to switch to them. That is what I meant by the BEST FREE CI provider. It is not the best if you have money for something better.
  - ncruces 11mo ago
    Yes I want to know too. Where can I run this test matrix for less than $100/mo unbilled (where half the “cost” is from macOS alone): https://github.com/ncruces/go-sqlite3/wiki/Support-matrix https://github.com/ncruces/go-sqlite3/wiki/Support-matrix I built a similar matrix to test wazero (of which I'm a maintainer).
  - brabel 11mo ago
    I would love to know it. I use GH Actions to test my open source code on MacOS, Windows and Linux FOR FREE which is amazing. Without them I just wouldn't test on anything other than what I happen to have locally or what TravisCI/CircleCI had in their free tier before GH Actions made things so much easier. But if you do know of alternatives, I'm all ears.
- saagarjha 11mo ago
  Unfortunately I don’t really know what a CI provider should do to fix this.
- SavioMak 11mo ago
  They fixed it 8 hours after your comment lol
  - 11mo ago
CafeRacer 11mo ago
You are not talking a out github actions? Monkeys would have done it better.
- michaelcampbell 11mo ago
  And yet there are millions of monkeys out there who've produced nothing.
flohofwoe 11mo ago
> That CI system created by so called monkeys is the one of the best free CI service in the world. It really isn't (look at Gitlab's for comparison), the only advantage of Github CI is that it offers free Mac runners.
- michaelcampbell 11mo ago
  Well nothing is better than anything else other than the things that make it better.
silisili 11mo ago
Anyone who has ever used Gitlab, or dare my foul mouth say Jenkins, has experienced a better system than Github actions. Unless it's miraculously improved recently as it's been a couple years for me, they didn't even document their regex/pattern matching. Best I could find via searching was that it was whatever Ruby used, which wasn't any kind of real standard. I don't want to call anyone names, but whoever defends said system deserves some ribbing.
- nromiun 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - noodletheworld 11mo ago
    Oh come on. Micros$$$$ft owns github. We don't need to give some pretend sympathy. When you can afford to have good things, and you're not, don't come crying about getting called bad names. Actions is bad. > I dare anyone who is delusional enough to think they can create something better to actually make something better Actions speak louder than words. Zig is leaving because of the issues they mentioned. > People tried other services like GitLab and realized it is slower, uglier and overall worse than GH and came crawling back. Maybe. I guess we'll see. I think the OP has been pretty clear that they're not happy with it, and, they're putting their money where their mouth is. Clearly, just complaining about broken things isn't working. Maybe a couple more big moves like this is what GH needs to wake up and allocate some more resources (that they, can categorically afford) to fixing things.
    - nromiun 11mo ago
      So who is complaining that Zig leaving GH is somehow a problem? I just don't like how they have to put out false claims like there are big problems with GH CI and Sponsors. Zig is leaving GH for another provider. They did not make a better GH and fixed all the problems with it. You literally have to fill out a form to convince Codeberg that you need CI. I would take GH CI over that.
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
63stack 11mo ago
I'm pretty sure the Zig Foundation does not have millions of dollars, contrary to Microsoft which has a market capitalization in the trillions, but consistently produces flaming garbage, product after product.
Cloudef 11mo ago
CI's job for me is to just run a nix flake
alexrp 11mo ago
> So much vague outrage over nothing. So you just chose to ignore the technical problems we have with GitHub Actions and then say there are no problems. That's certainly a take. > That CI system created by so called monkeys is the one of the best free CI service in the world. We self-host all our CI machines so the "free" hosted runners have no relevance here. > Not everyone has the millions of dollars like Zig Foundation to create their own CI servers. We don't have "millions of dollars". If only! I'd also note that we spend our money very efficiently; most of our CI machines are consumer-grade hardware hosted in team member's homes. We don't just throw endless amounts of money at cloud providers. > After that they appreciate GitHub Sponsors, but say it is now a complete liability just because a project leader left. What are the actual changes? Any new rule? But no, it is now a "liability" and we should accept it. GitHub Sponsors is a liability because Microsoft can increase their cut at any time, or even axe it outright if they don't think it's profitable for them anymore. This risk is very real considering that, as Andrew pointed out, the feature has been neglected for years. It is objectively less risky for us to have donors use a platform like Every.org.
- jswny 11mo ago
  Can’t any donation platform you don’t fully control cut you off at any point? What exactly is different about GitHub sponsors here?
  - hobofan 11mo ago
    In theory sure, but you have to evaluate how likely it is. Some typical dynamics: Big org platform -> exposed to risk, as you are not a significant addition to their bottom line Small donation platform -> Can be easily bullied by payment processors to "derisk" --- every.org is a bit special, as it only lists 501c nonprofits - which the Zig Foundation is - and AFAIK has a decent track record. Most other open source projects don't clear that bar.
rldjbpin 11mo ago
the technical issues are completely valid. at the same time, there is a balance between citing reasons for the change and burning bridges with those you leave behind. the friction caused for the supporters felt a bit tone deaf. although the project itself runs on strong principles so i can imagine they know what they signed up for.
queenkjuul 10mo ago
GitHub actions may be one if the best free options, but that doesn't make it one of the best paid options. I have seemingly endless headaches with it at work.

by nromiun 11mo ago

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

sieabahlpark 11mo ago

[dead]

homebrewer 11mo ago

The only good thing about it is their very generous limits for "open source" projects (it doesn't even have to be free software AFAIK, just the source has to be visible to everyone). The CI service itself is an absolute trash fire caused by the usual Microsoft NIH, and if they have financial means not to deal with it anymore, I see no reason for them to waste their limited development time on dealing with it.

nromiun 11mo ago
They could have easily done that without all the insults.
- Groxx 11mo ago
  I would agree if they weren't so clearly deserved. Calling shit out as being shit is fine.
  - nromiun 11mo ago
    Just because you think something is shit does not mean it becomes gospel for the rest of us. Millions of other people are fine with GitHub, respect their choice.
    - LtWorf 11mo ago
      He didn't insult the people who are still using github.
- baq 11mo ago
  I agree it’s unprofessional, but at least we’re talking about GHA, even if tangentially, because there’s a lot to talk about and not much of it is good.
ralph84 11mo ago
Where else would the CI service for a Microsoft product be invented? NIH is a weird insult in this context. If Microsoft had instead acquired a CI service you’d be complaining about how they’re reducing competition.
- SkiFire13 11mo ago
  > Where else would the CI service for a Microsoft product be invented? FYI Azure has its own CI service and that's pretty bad too.
- s-lambert 11mo ago
  Microsoft had their own CI service and it existed before GitHub Actions did, it was renamed Azure Dev Ops but it existed before GitHub Actions and it was largely similar from what I remember.
bytehowl 11mo ago
>it doesn't even have to be free software AFAIK, just the source has to be visible to everyone With the implication that MS is free to harvest it for LLM training?

stabbles 11mo ago

The best free CI system in the world has macOS 15 runners running at 75% capacity due to a background process that consumes 100% CPU [1]. The problem is known to them since May but not fixed half a year later. [1] https://github.com/actions/runner-images/issues/13358 https://github.com/actions/runner-images/issues/13358

nromiun 11mo ago
So tell us where is the better free macOS CI provider? I would love to switch to them. That is what I meant by the BEST FREE CI provider. It is not the best if you have money for something better.
- ncruces 11mo ago
  Yes I want to know too. Where can I run this test matrix for less than $100/mo unbilled (where half the “cost” is from macOS alone): https://github.com/ncruces/go-sqlite3/wiki/Support-matrix https://github.com/ncruces/go-sqlite3/wiki/Support-matrix I built a similar matrix to test wazero (of which I'm a maintainer).
- brabel 11mo ago
  I would love to know it. I use GH Actions to test my open source code on MacOS, Windows and Linux FOR FREE which is amazing. Without them I just wouldn't test on anything other than what I happen to have locally or what TravisCI/CircleCI had in their free tier before GH Actions made things so much easier. But if you do know of alternatives, I'm all ears.
saagarjha 11mo ago
Unfortunately I don’t really know what a CI provider should do to fix this.
SavioMak 11mo ago
They fixed it 8 hours after your comment lol
- 11mo ago

CafeRacer 11mo ago

You are not talking a out github actions? Monkeys would have done it better.

michaelcampbell 11mo ago
And yet there are millions of monkeys out there who've produced nothing.

flohofwoe 11mo ago

> That CI system created by so called monkeys is the one of the best free CI service in the world. It really isn't (look at Gitlab's for comparison), the only advantage of Github CI is that it offers free Mac runners.

michaelcampbell 11mo ago
Well nothing is better than anything else other than the things that make it better.

silisili 11mo ago

Anyone who has ever used Gitlab, or dare my foul mouth say Jenkins, has experienced a better system than Github actions. Unless it's miraculously improved recently as it's been a couple years for me, they didn't even document their regex/pattern matching. Best I could find via searching was that it was whatever Ruby used, which wasn't any kind of real standard. I don't want to call anyone names, but whoever defends said system deserves some ribbing.

nromiun 11mo ago
[flagged]
- noodletheworld 11mo ago
  Oh come on. Micros$$$$ft owns github. We don't need to give some pretend sympathy. When you can afford to have good things, and you're not, don't come crying about getting called bad names. Actions is bad. > I dare anyone who is delusional enough to think they can create something better to actually make something better Actions speak louder than words. Zig is leaving because of the issues they mentioned. > People tried other services like GitLab and realized it is slower, uglier and overall worse than GH and came crawling back. Maybe. I guess we'll see. I think the OP has been pretty clear that they're not happy with it, and, they're putting their money where their mouth is. Clearly, just complaining about broken things isn't working. Maybe a couple more big moves like this is what GH needs to wake up and allocate some more resources (that they, can categorically afford) to fixing things.
  - nromiun 11mo ago
    So who is complaining that Zig leaving GH is somehow a problem? I just don't like how they have to put out false claims like there are big problems with GH CI and Sponsors. Zig is leaving GH for another provider. They did not make a better GH and fixed all the problems with it. You literally have to fill out a form to convince Codeberg that you need CI. I would take GH CI over that.

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

63stack 11mo ago

I'm pretty sure the Zig Foundation does not have millions of dollars, contrary to Microsoft which has a market capitalization in the trillions, but consistently produces flaming garbage, product after product.

Cloudef 11mo ago

CI's job for me is to just run a nix flake

alexrp 11mo ago

> So much vague outrage over nothing. So you just chose to ignore the technical problems we have with GitHub Actions and then say there are no problems. That's certainly a take. > That CI system created by so called monkeys is the one of the best free CI service in the world. We self-host all our CI machines so the "free" hosted runners have no relevance here. > Not everyone has the millions of dollars like Zig Foundation to create their own CI servers. We don't have "millions of dollars". If only! I'd also note that we spend our money very efficiently; most of our CI machines are consumer-grade hardware hosted in team member's homes. We don't just throw endless amounts of money at cloud providers. > After that they appreciate GitHub Sponsors, but say it is now a complete liability just because a project leader left. What are the actual changes? Any new rule? But no, it is now a "liability" and we should accept it. GitHub Sponsors is a liability because Microsoft can increase their cut at any time, or even axe it outright if they don't think it's profitable for them anymore. This risk is very real considering that, as Andrew pointed out, the feature has been neglected for years. It is objectively less risky for us to have donors use a platform like Every.org.

jswny 11mo ago
Can’t any donation platform you don’t fully control cut you off at any point? What exactly is different about GitHub sponsors here?
- hobofan 11mo ago
  In theory sure, but you have to evaluate how likely it is. Some typical dynamics: Big org platform -> exposed to risk, as you are not a significant addition to their bottom line Small donation platform -> Can be easily bullied by payment processors to "derisk" --- every.org is a bit special, as it only lists 501c nonprofits - which the Zig Foundation is - and AFAIK has a decent track record. Most other open source projects don't clear that bar.

rldjbpin 11mo ago

the technical issues are completely valid. at the same time, there is a balance between citing reasons for the change and burning bridges with those you leave behind. the friction caused for the supporters felt a bit tone deaf. although the project itself runs on strong principles so i can imagine they know what they signed up for.

queenkjuul 10mo ago

GitHub actions may be one if the best free options, but that doesn't make it one of the best paid options. I have seemingly endless headaches with it at work.