new | show | ask | jobs Github

noodletheworld 4 hours ago

Oh come on.

Micros$$$$ft owns github.

We don't need to give some pretend sympathy.

When you can afford to have good things, and you're not, don't come crying about getting called bad names.

Actions is bad.

> I dare anyone who is delusional enough to think they can create something better to actually make something better

Actions speak louder than words.

Zig is leaving because of the issues they mentioned.

> People tried other services like GitLab and realized it is slower, uglier and overall worse than GH and came crawling back.

Maybe. I guess we'll see.

I think the OP has been pretty clear that they're not happy with it, and, they're putting their money where their mouth is.

Clearly, just complaining about broken things isn't working.

Maybe a couple more big moves like this is what GH needs to wake up and allocate some more resources (that they, can categorically afford) to fixing things.

▲

nromiun 4 hours ago | parent [-]

So who is complaining that Zig leaving GH is somehow a problem? I just don't like how they have to put out false claims like there are big problems with GH CI and Sponsors.

Zig is leaving GH for another provider. They did not make a better GH and fixed all the problems with it.

You literally have to fill out a form to convince Codeberg that you need CI. I would take GH CI over that.

▲

noodletheworld 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> I just don't like how they have to put out false claims like there are big problems with GH CI and Sponsors

These aren't false claims.

Thats my point.

Microsoft can afford to make these tools better; they just dont care.

Yes, its better than having nothing, but honestly you have to be wearing blinkers not to see the decline rn.

▲

josephg 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Microsoft can afford to make these tools better; they just dont care.

They certainly have enough money, but can they actually improve it? Who could step in? How? Do you think more hiring would help? Or would it make it worse?

Leadership could try and step in by force. But they'd have to undermine whoever is running github actions to do so. It would be a huge, risky political move. And for what? Are they actually losing customers over gh actions? I doubt it. I'm just not sure anyone cares to spend that much political capital to "fix" something that is arguably not that broken.

Big companies also simply can't fix stuff that's broken internally. Its not a money thing. Its a culture & politics thing. Its a leadership thing.

For example, does anyone remember Google Code? It was a github-like code hosting service that predated github by many years. Compared to github, it was terrible. When github came out, google could have rewritten Code from the ground up to copy github's better design and better choices. (Kind of like android did with ios). But they didn't. Github kicked their butt for many years. But nothing happened. They couldn't fix it. Now google code is basically dead.

Or why didn't Adobe build a viable figma competitor? Why didn't microsoft make a successful iphone or ipad competitor? Why didn't intel win the contract to make the iphone CPU? These aren't money problems. Its something else.

I've only heard stories of a couple leaders who had the force of personality to fix problems like this. Like Steve Jobs. And Elon Musk pulls some wild stunts too. Frankly, I don't think I'd like to work under either of them.

▲

missingdays an hour ago | parent [-]

> Are they actually losing customers over gh actions? I doubt it.

Did you read the article?

	▲	josephg 26 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt Zig was ever a paying customer of github.