3 ms·

From GitHub CTO in 2025 when they announced they're moving everything to Azure instead of letting GitHub's infrastructure remain independent: > For us, availab

From GitHub CTO in 2025 when they announced they're moving everything to Azure instead of letting GitHub's infrastructure remain independent: > For us, availability is job #1, and this migration ensures GitHub remains the fast, reliable platform developers depend on That went about as well as everyone thought back then. Does anyone else remember back in ~2014-2015 sometime, when half the community was screaming at GitHub to "please be faster at adding more features"? I wish we could get back to platforms (or OSes for that matter) focusing in reliability and stability. Seems those days are long gone.

awestroke 8mo ago
Perhaps when they switch over fully to Azure they'll forget to disable IPv6 access. One can dream
braiamp 8mo ago
> I wish we could get back to platforms (or OSes for that matter) focusing in reliability and stability That's only a valid sentiment if you only use the big players. Both of those have medium/smaller competitors that have shown (for decades) that they are extremely boring, therefore stable.
- PxldLtd 8mo ago
  Try convincing the CTO that this panoply of smaller players will be around for 5yrs or worth the effort migrating to. I'm at a much smaller outfit now so we have more freedom but I'd dread to think the arguments I would've had at the 4000+ employee companies I was at before.
- SlinkyOnStairs 8mo ago
  In that same period the big players have only gotten bigger and the "Mittelstand" in tech has been practically dying. Replaced by the flood of VC startups that are far too obsessed with "growth" to care about reliability and stability. (Note that "is this company financially viable in the long term future" is an important part of stability. Doesn't matter how rock solid the software is if the startup's bankrupt by the end of next year.)
- lmm 8mo ago
  Like who? HN loves to rave about GitLab but they're even less stable than GitHub.
  - braiamp 8mo ago
    Gitlab service may be unreliable, but Gitlab the product to deploy is extremely fine. Many third party instances of Gitlab that don't have problems that only happens at scale.
comboy 8mo ago
I think stability and reliability have vastly improved over the last years in general (not necessarily talking about gh specifically) It's just that everybody is using 100 tools and dependencies which themselves depend on 50 others to be working.
- hrmtst93837 8mo ago
  [flagged]
__alexs 8mo ago
GitHub have not really got much better at adding new features either though :(
- carlmr 8mo ago
  They added the service unavailable feature.
- embedding-shape 8mo ago
  This was before Actions and a whole lot of other non-git related stuff. There was years (maybe even a decade?) where GitHub essentially was unchanged besides fixes and small incremental improvements, long time ago :)
  - wongarsu 8mo ago
    GH Actions was good for them as another billable feature, but I'm skeptical we actually gained much over external CI providers The improvements to PR review have been nice though
    - cozzyd 8mo ago
      Don't forget the security implications if you host your own actions runner.
      - nine_k 8mo ago
        What are these?
    - embedding-shape 8mo ago
      > The improvements to PR review have been nice though I dunno, probably the worst UX downgrade so far, almost no PRs are "fully available" on page load, but requires additional clicks and scrolling to "unlock" all the context, kind of sucks. Used to be you loaded the PR diff and you actually saw the full diff, except really large files. You could do CTRL+F and search for stuff, you didn't need to click to expand even small files. Reviewing medium/large PRs is just borderline obnoxious today on GH.
zahlman 8mo ago
That's about when I joined, and all I really remember thinking was that it was cool that I could now share my repo publicly without having to try and run a server from a residential IP.

awestroke 8mo ago

Perhaps when they switch over fully to Azure they'll forget to disable IPv6 access. One can dream

braiamp 8mo ago

> I wish we could get back to platforms (or OSes for that matter) focusing in reliability and stability That's only a valid sentiment if you only use the big players. Both of those have medium/smaller competitors that have shown (for decades) that they are extremely boring, therefore stable.

PxldLtd 8mo ago
Try convincing the CTO that this panoply of smaller players will be around for 5yrs or worth the effort migrating to. I'm at a much smaller outfit now so we have more freedom but I'd dread to think the arguments I would've had at the 4000+ employee companies I was at before.
SlinkyOnStairs 8mo ago
In that same period the big players have only gotten bigger and the "Mittelstand" in tech has been practically dying. Replaced by the flood of VC startups that are far too obsessed with "growth" to care about reliability and stability. (Note that "is this company financially viable in the long term future" is an important part of stability. Doesn't matter how rock solid the software is if the startup's bankrupt by the end of next year.)
lmm 8mo ago
Like who? HN loves to rave about GitLab but they're even less stable than GitHub.
- braiamp 8mo ago
  Gitlab service may be unreliable, but Gitlab the product to deploy is extremely fine. Many third party instances of Gitlab that don't have problems that only happens at scale.

comboy 8mo ago

I think stability and reliability have vastly improved over the last years in general (not necessarily talking about gh specifically) It's just that everybody is using 100 tools and dependencies which themselves depend on 50 others to be working.

hrmtst93837 8mo ago
[flagged]

__alexs 8mo ago

GitHub have not really got much better at adding new features either though :(

carlmr 8mo ago
They added the service unavailable feature.
embedding-shape 8mo ago
This was before Actions and a whole lot of other non-git related stuff. There was years (maybe even a decade?) where GitHub essentially was unchanged besides fixes and small incremental improvements, long time ago :)
- wongarsu 8mo ago
  GH Actions was good for them as another billable feature, but I'm skeptical we actually gained much over external CI providers The improvements to PR review have been nice though
  - cozzyd 8mo ago
    Don't forget the security implications if you host your own actions runner.
    - nine_k 8mo ago
      What are these?
  - embedding-shape 8mo ago
    > The improvements to PR review have been nice though I dunno, probably the worst UX downgrade so far, almost no PRs are "fully available" on page load, but requires additional clicks and scrolling to "unlock" all the context, kind of sucks. Used to be you loaded the PR diff and you actually saw the full diff, except really large files. You could do CTRL+F and search for stuff, you didn't need to click to expand even small files. Reviewing medium/large PRs is just borderline obnoxious today on GH.

zahlman 8mo ago

That's about when I joined, and all I really remember thinking was that it was cool that I could now share my repo publicly without having to try and run a server from a residential IP.