4 ms·
That would just drive users into the arms of the alternatives, which would love to own the world's code... like Cursor/Musk. Microsoft and GitHub's only option
by consumer451 2mo ago
That would just drive users into the arms of the alternatives, which would love to own the world's code... like Cursor/Musk.
Microsoft and GitHub's only option is to suck it up, absorb this growth, and lower failure rates. They have the money, so that's not the issue.
As someone on the sidelines, this is really interesting to watch unfold.
- Macha 2mo agoWell either they can handle this load that Microsoft can't, or they can't. If Microsoft are going to continue to be unreliable in the absence of the rate limit then: If alternatives can handle the load, those who would consider those alternatives if Microsoft opposed a rate limit are likely to move to them anyway. If alternatives aren't able to manage, then user's aren't going to jump since those services won't actually provide more usage.
- b112 2mo agoI think the number of commits is a red herring, but that said, I wonder how spiky their load is. Imagine a fee over X commits, but only during certain hours. I can imagine 90% of the commits over 6 or 8 timezones, maybe 50% over 4 right now...
- fragmede 2mo agoIt's not a red herring, every commit necessitates a database hit.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- consumer451 2mo agoI was thinking the same thing at first: ideas to increase product limits on GitHub, to increase reliability given limited infra. However, there are sharks in the water, and with the diminishing mean of user technical knowledge, the product actually needs to become even more free. GitHub likely needs even lower friction. "All it takes" is the insanely heavy technical lift to support that. There is no other solution. All the C-Suite needs to do is foster an environment with well-thought through, and possibly over-funded engineering, at the edge of the art. That sounds like an amazing challenge.
- dham 2mo agoWhy would any company want coding data now? It's all garbage. I'd be surprised if anything past 2025 is even used for training.
- consumer451 2mo agoMe personally, I would like to own the world's code. The richest man in the world is interested in this dataset as well.
- inigyou 2mo agoThere's nothing special about code here - if you can own the world's $X for any X, you win capitalism.
- consumer451 2mo agoLet me add one more reply here. Even if I accepted that given the new repos: all the new code = "It's all garbage." - I would certainly love to be in a position to observe the new code + metadata = software trends, as software eats the remaining world.
- lenkite 2mo agoI don't think anyone would love to own the world's AI slop. The capex and revenue expenditure would be too high for any ROI.
- pibaker 2mo agoIf you use GitHub as just a software forge then sure you can find an alternative. But I suspect more people use GitHub for its social aspects and they will stick around despite the regressions because building an alternative to an established social network is incredibly difficult if not impossible. You can get work done on any software forge. But potential employers will still ask for your GitHub. People will judge your personal project by its GitHub stars and be less reluctant to download a binary from GitHub than elsewhere. Potential contributors will leave a PR on GitHub but probably not if they have to make an account on a new platform and learn how it works. And of course, let's not assume any competitor can just absorb even a fraction of the traffic GitHub receives without suffering similar reliability issues.