3 ms·

They still host all artefacts and logs for these self-hosted runs. Probably costs them a fair bit

featherless 10mo ago
There's absolutely no way that the cost scales with the usage of my own hardware. I cannot fathom this change in any way or form. Livid.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
gz09 10mo ago
They already charge for this separately (at least storage). Some compute cost may be justified but you'd wish that this change would come with some commitment of fixing bugs (many open for years) in their CI platform -- as opposed to investing all their resources in a (mostly inferior) LLM agent (copilot).
- naikrovek 10mo ago
  Copilot uses other models, not (necessarily?) its own, so I’m not sure what you mean.
  - gz09 10mo ago
    It does leverage various models, but - github copilot PR reviews are subpar compared to what I've seen from other services: at least for our PRs they tend to be mostly an (expensive) grammar/spell-check - given that it's github native you'd wish for a good integration with the platform but then when your org is behind a (github) IP whitelist things seem to break often - network firewall for the agent doesn't seem to work properly raised tickets for all these but given how well it works when it does, I might as well just migrate to another service
newsoftheday 10mo ago
[flagged]
- otterley 10mo ago
  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.
  - gheltlkckfn 10mo ago
    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.
    - JonChesterfield 10mo ago
      Microsoft pleading poverty doesn't really fly
      - otterley 10mo ago
        Nobody's pleading poverty here. It's a reasonable business decision to charge for value, just like the rest of the economy does.

There's absolutely no way that the cost scales with the usage of my own hardware. I cannot fathom this change in any way or form. Livid.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

gz09 10mo ago

They already charge for this separately (at least storage). Some compute cost may be justified but you'd wish that this change would come with some commitment of fixing bugs (many open for years) in their CI platform -- as opposed to investing all their resources in a (mostly inferior) LLM agent (copilot).

naikrovek 10mo ago
Copilot uses other models, not (necessarily?) its own, so I’m not sure what you mean.
- gz09 10mo ago
  It does leverage various models, but - github copilot PR reviews are subpar compared to what I've seen from other services: at least for our PRs they tend to be mostly an (expensive) grammar/spell-check - given that it's github native you'd wish for a good integration with the platform but then when your org is behind a (github) IP whitelist things seem to break often - network firewall for the agent doesn't seem to work properly raised tickets for all these but given how well it works when it does, I might as well just migrate to another service

newsoftheday 10mo ago

[flagged]

otterley 10mo ago
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.
- gheltlkckfn 10mo ago
  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.
  - JonChesterfield 10mo ago
    Microsoft pleading poverty doesn't really fly
    - otterley 10mo ago
      Nobody's pleading poverty here. It's a reasonable business decision to charge for value, just like the rest of the economy does.