alt Hacker NewsPricing Changes for GitHub Actions
Comments
With their availability issues it will be hard to forecast costs of “continuous” operation. I guess everyone using ARC can get rekt, why would you put in the work to move to their next bs when you can just leave?
Maybe it's time to start dusting off the ol' Jenkins-fu?
Charging per minute for self-hosted runners seems absolutely bananas!
This customer will be leaving GitHub action runners for punishing self-hosting.
GitLab CI and others seem to be perfectly serviceable.
Ahh, so since GitHub is completely incompetent when it comes to managing a CI they are going to make it worse for everyone to get their cut.
I hate GH Action runners with a passion. They are slow, overpriced, and clearly held together with duct tape and chewing gum. WarpBuild, on the other hand, was a breeze to setup and provided faster runners and lower prices.
This is a really shitty move.
Hey GitHub, your Microsoft is showing...
PLEASE stop propping up the narrative that the GitHub Actions control plane was previously free. It never was. Pricing is not that simple. I see way too many people in this thread, and even GitHub Actions competitors promoting this nonsensical narrative.
Microsoft are really sweating GitHub now aren't they? It wouldn't be so bad if it improving but there is certainly a perception that it is costing more for a poorer product, irrespective of the new features they're layering on.
AWS code (build|deploy) supports GitHub actions workflow, gitlab does, gitea (codeberg, forgejo) too
The biggest issue is the compatibility, forgejo doesn’t have all the actions available that GitHub does nor some of the same functionality
Ah the monoculture comes back to haunt people. Who could have seen that one coming?
I'm not sure what response they expected, but for some reason it makes me think not that.
it explains github actions update better than github
Given that I can dump hundreds of TBs into the private container registry without paying anything I'm pretty surprised that they now charge for what is basically providing log streaming and retention.
It's a bit weird, they add pricing for this, but reducwle GitHub-hosted runners by "up to 39%".
Not sure about the "up to" implications, but I guess it's just Microsoft trying to make github a bit more freemium tm
I've been running self hosted runners for my company using Actions Runner Controller (ARC) on my own kubernetes infrastructure. Could never really get the devs invested in GitOps style dev cycles so I may just chuck actions and use a more nightly or on demand style build server since that seems to be what they desire and expect. I always expected this day to come so my actions use very little github/actions specific stuff, mainly they just kick off scripts already. I do wonder how hard it would be to create my own github API pollers etc but not sure I want to invest any further in anything github specific. Good news is the effective date is March and the initial prices for my usage will probably be very low but I fully expect them to push further price increases / monetization / lock-in.
Anything that prices spammers out of abusing GitHub actions is a win in my book...
We all knew this would happen. For open source projects one step local build and test is superior to full automation for this reason. It lasts forever whereas these automated server configs require ongoing maintenance.
It's effectively proven at this point that any good product that is run by a publicly traded company will turn to shit.
this article explains release better than github itself https://www.blacksmith.sh/blog/actions-pricing
Well sounds like $40 per month more for us. Looked at CircleCI pricing, and mostly because of HOW they charge, it would be $3000, so Github it is.
Is it a runner minute or workflow running minute? That would be a massive difference. Would people pay for idle time or not?
what are the opensource alternatives to selfhosted runners ?
Hmm... News about massive RAM price hikes. Then GitHub decides to charge for per-minute. Do they keep a lot of stuff in RAM while a workflow is running?
Surely self-hosted runners are a retention mechanism with a relatively low cost for GitHub? How do they rationalise the long-term harm that this causes over just swallowing the relatively small amount it costs to keep customers paying?
People, now, are going to be annoyed and/or pissed off about this and look for/move to alternatives. It's not even that difficult to move, and if you're already self-hosting runners you're also in the position to self-host your Forge or move elsewhere.
Actions isn't even good enough to demand this. They're slow, buggy, and full of shit.
Feels super much like the classic Microsoft short-sighted bullshit. Take something that's been running well, and people were happy, then abruptly change it in disruptive ways and slowly kill your products that were doing just fine.
Github can just drop Actions pricing and leave the self-hosted stuff alone, and people would even have extended more goodwill. Is MS this short-sighted and greedy as to push further toward killing a golden goose?
Atlassian recently did this with BitBucket self hosted runners. Is there a CI/CD cartel or something?
If I have a VPS, what should I be running on it to replace github actions? (eg run tests, return pass/fail to github PR)
I guess Jenkins gets back in the game.
Don’t forget the windows tax!
When building on self-hosted windows machines, you actually pay three times.
Oh I wish I could make my customers pay three times for everything I deliver, I might be as rich as Bill by now.
Makes you wonder, how much the AI madness will be able to cannibalize other buisness sectors before it encounters the limits of growth there, leaving behind hollowed out eco-systems - similar to how adds ruined everything.
I do not even understand why any decent size eng org uses actions. It only has rough edges.
Microsoft has mierdas touch.
Possibly a good time to remind people that the default value of jobs.<job_id>.timeout-minutes is 360 (minutes), meaning that your hanging job will cost $0.72 before it times out.
https://docs.github.com/en/actions/reference/workflows-and-a...
Is there a great opensource CI system that integrates nicely with github repos?
37signal's `signoff` script is sounding like a good play in the very near future: https://world.hey.com/dhh/we-re-moving-continuous-integratio...
Someone in this thread will unironcally suggest Jenkins, CircleCI or Bitbucket.
These people will forever unto the end of time into their afterlife have a Harem of old ladies following them around laughing at their never ending hilarious hot takes.
Use Blacksmith. I promise you won't regret it.
Has GitHub fixed IPv6 yet?
Alternatives:
- DroneCI
- ConcourseCI
- forgejo can use github actions
Wild to see that they make you pay an expensive price to use your own hardware... First, they are free quota and the free self hosted runners to kill the previously existing competitors by dumping their price very hard, then, once alternatives are already dead, they can start to take their margin. Disgusting!
Founder of Depot[0] here. I'm disappointed by this change and by the impact this is going to have on all self-hosted runner customers, not just us. In my view, this is GitHub extracting more revenue from the ecosystem for a service that is slow, unreliable, and that GitHub has openly not invested in.
We will continue to do our best to provide the fastest GHA runners and keep them cheaper than GitHub-hosted runners.
Love how they drop this news right before everyone goes away for the xmas holidays and it kicks in right as you come back. Or before you come back if you live outside the US.
What a fucking joke. They are going to charge me for running a script I wrote on MY server that is merely launched by their server that I am already paying an outrageous amount for to have a private repository. By the minute!!!! It never ends.
I guess this is on brand for Microsoft. Just lame to go through the trouble to self host runners and still get tacked on with fees after the fact.
Hard for me to feel like our industry is innovating and not just gouging with the rest in the battle for enshittification.
I will intentionally start exploring other options even if the cost isn't high, because I don't want to support this type of thing.
I have a love-hate relationship with GitHub Actions. Love because they are right there in my GitHub repository. Hate because they are very brittle once you move out of the happy path.
It seems GitLab has a much better experience in this department, but their pricing is hard to justify for us...
Genuinely curious if folks here had better experiences or recommendations for a smooth CI/CD experience.
So can we just go back to using external CI platforms that just interact with GitHub's commit status API or whatever?
i think it's time to migrate like zig.
We've been using woodpecker-ci for the last two years, it's really simple to setup and maintain for anyone looking for a self-hosted ci solution.
Per-minute pricing for self-hosted runners seems like a very fast way for them to force everyone who actually is using self-hosted runners to migrate away.
I suspect we'll be doing that sometime in January or February.
I guess forgejo is the easiest migration path? https://forgejo.org/