meh, I dunno.

Using bare-metal requires competent Unix admins, and Actions team is full of javascript clowns (see: decision to use dashes in environment variable; lack of any sort of shell quoting support in templates; keeping logs next to binaries in self-hosted runners). Perhaps they would be better off using infra someone else maintains.

hey there! blacksmith solutions engineer here :) love to hear we've helped speed up your tests and docker builds!!

could you shoot me your GH org so I can apply your startup discount? feel free to reach out to support@blacksmith.sh and I'll get back to you asap. thanks for using blacksmith!

I haven’t use depot but I’m pretty sure the setup is literally just switching out the runs-on value in your workflows

Such as?

Thank you! Really appreciate the support.

Founder of Depot here. We provide faster and more reliable GitHub Actions runners (as well as other build performance services) at half the cost of GitHub [0]

[0] https://depot.dev/

There's direct evidence that GitHub Actions was the rewrite of Azure Pipelines that was originally planned to finish 5 years ago and got "stuck" (because all their resources moved to GitHub). For a while you could find 2020 roadmap repositories (on GitHub) for AzDO talking up a Pipelines rewrite bringing a lot more features (including better Docker alignment versus Pipelines' much more complex "runner skills") that instead showed up in the first version of GitHub Actions.

Microsoft claims Azure DevOps still has a roadmap, but it's hard to imagine that the real roadmap isn't simply "Wait for more VPs in North Carolina to retire before finally killing the brand".

Like a week ago? We’re currently migrating away from it as everyone hated it.

What they are really saying is they don't want third party contributions. They don't have anyone triaging Issues or PRs so don't send them.

They will occasionally make changes if it aligns with a new product effort driven from within the org.

Saying they're dropping support is a stretch esp as very few people actually pay for their Support package anyway..... (Yes they do offer it as a paid option to Enterprise customers)

This is on the checkout action too, by the way. You know, the very first thing people put in their CI pipeline.

Yeah, what really needs to happen with that repo is to put that in the README to use the gh CLI instead of pointing to the third-party action with questionable security policies. If they were accepting PRs for that repo, it would be an easy PR to make.

> How did we go in 20 years from holding these companies to account when they'd misbehave to acting as if they are poor damsels in distress whenever someone points out a flaw?

Honestly I think the problem is more a rosy view of the past versus any actual change in behavior. There have always been defenders of such companies.

> How did we go in 20 years from holding these companies to account when they'd misbehave to acting as if they are poor damsels in distress whenever someone points out a flaw?

They hired a ton of people on very very good salaries

I think big tech being so big now that these "issue" is too small for their priority is saying something

You better thank god for MS for being lazy and incompetent, the last thing we want for big tech is being innovative and have a stronger monopoly

The original comment said to stop giving money to these companies if they are not giving you a satisfactory service.

The opposite, to be lazy and to continue giving them money whilst being unhappy with what you get in return, would actually be more like defending the companies.

I won't "defend" Microsoft in this case, but I am always annoyed by phrases like "world's biggest billion-dollar businesses... bablah".

Their size or past misbehaviors shouldn't be relevant to this discussion. Bringing those up feels a bit like an ad hominem. Whether criticism is valid should depend entirely on how GitHub Actions actually works and how it compares to similar services.

No that's actually a completely different issue. You're talking about volunteers working on side projects that are sometimes foundational to the way the internet works and then people feel entitled to tell them what to do without contributing.

Here we are talking about one of the worlds most valuable companies that gets all sorts of perks, benefits and preferential treatment from various entities and governments on the globe and somehow we have to be grateful when they deliver garbage while milking the business they bought.

Stealing it...

What is it that you actually want me to do here?

Just refuse to do my job because I think the tools suck?

If you’re so lucky that your employer lets you use any $TOOL you want, great, but I _have_ to use GitHub actions.

So I’m part of the problem? Me specifically?

buildkite is leaps and bounds above the others. especially if you need to really tailor your workloads to the change diff (say in a monorepo), the dynamic pipeline support is superb.

really surprised there are no others though. dagger.io was in the space but the level of complexity is an order of magnitude higher

GitLab CI is pretty close to being actually good. Certainly less brittle than GitHub Actions from the looks of it...

JetBrains TeamCity is pretty good IMHO

I quite liked Bitrise for mobile apps when I used that.

Yes and no. Generally logo usage requires permission. While the usage isn’t the whole company, it’s enough to justify some sort of logo usage.