alt Hacker NewsIntroducing a separate charge specifically targeting those of your customers who choose to self-host your hilariously fragile infrastructure is certainly a choice.. And one I assume is in no way tied to adoption/usage-based KPIs.
Of course, if you can just fence in your competition and charge admission, it'd be silly to invest time in building a superior product.
Replies
This is absolutely bananas; for my own CI workflow I'll have to pay $140+/month now just to run my own hardware.
I resorted to a local forgejo + woodpecker-ci. Every time I am forced back to GitHub for some reason it confirms I made the right choice.
In my experience gitlab always felt clunky and overly complicated on the back end, but for my needs local forgejo is better than the cloud options.
They still host all artefacts and logs for these self-hosted runs. Probably costs them a fair bit
Meanwhile I'm just running `pytest`, `pyproject-build`, `twine` etc. at the command line....
(People seem to object to this comment. I genuinely do not understand why.)
Runners aren’t fragile, workflows are.
The runner software they provide is solid and I’ve never had an issue with it after administering self-hosted GitHub actions runners for 4 years. 100s of thousands of runners have taken jobs, done the work, destroyed themselves, and been replaced with clean runners, all without a single issue with the runners themselves.
Workflows on the other hand, they have problems. The whole design is a bit silly
We've self-hosted github actions in the past, and self-hosting it doesn't help all that much with the fragile part. For github it is just as much triggering the actions as it is running them. ;) I hope the product gets some investment, because it has been unstable for such a long time, that on the inside it must be just the usual right now. GitHub has by far the worst uptime of any SaaS tools we use at the moment, and it isn't even close.
> Actions is down again, call Brent so he can fix it again...