3 ms·
The utter rent-seeking audacity of charging by the minute for action runners you run on your own server... Charge a flat fee per Action, sure. There is a tiny
by donatj 10mo ago
The utter rent-seeking audacity of charging by the minute for action runners you run on your own server...
Charge a flat fee per Action, sure. There is a tiny cost on GitHub's part associated with the API calls for starting and stopping, but if my build takes 8 hours on a self-hosted runner there is no more cost to GitHub than it taking 10 seconds.
That's the whole point of self-hosted runners.
Maybe there was more outrage elsewhere, but I was frankly confused at the seeming lack thereof here on Hacker News.
- ClikeX 10mo agoYeah, the per minute pricing is what really does it. It makes me think they've gone with the worst option first, so people will swallow the new adjusted workflow they'll come up with.
- franktankbank 10mo agoI don't even understand how they could do it. You own the servers that are giving them responses to determine the start/end times, so fudge the numbers fuck them, maybe you could find bugs in their shitty code so they start crediting you. I think they kinda fucked themselves 3 concrete ways (among the nerds which may not be a problem for them): 1) this whole thing 2) the infinite running jobs issues which called attention to how poorly managed the GHA system is 3) zig et al announcing their departure and all the positive conversation around that