|
| ▲ | xp84 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I think you’ve got it backwards. GitHub is by far the market leader for hosted repositories and maybe for CI too. This is like asking “Why are companies interested in using AWS?” When one firm is so dominant for so long, the question is more like “Why shouldn’t we just use GitHub like 80% of software companies do?” The issues they’ve had are almost all very recent. Very few companies have reevaluated that decision, because moving a big and well-integrated part of infrastructure is a huge project that delivers no value to the business. Speculating that you’ll have fewer development-slowing outages is not the most convincing when asking for the budget to do this. Plus, self-hosted isn’t necessarily going to have better uptime - mistakes happen. I think before Actions, it would have been a lot easier to migrate off GH though. You’d just need to change a lot of repo URLs and find a way to set up webhooks from the new place to poke CI. Now with Actions, a lot lives in GH and in a proprietary flavor that doesn’t just ‘lift and shift.’ |
| |
| ▲ | Mashimo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > I think you’ve got it backwards. GitHub is by far the market leader for hosted repositories Maybe, but I never heard about any company using github for internal projects in my real life. For me it was always to go to for open source projects. Then again it's not a topic that often comes up in my developer circles. | | |
| ▲ | jcgrillo an hour ago | parent [-] | | More than half the companies I have worked for use Github. The others used Atlassian tools which were at least as bad from a reliability perspective and much less nice to use (IMO). |
| |
| ▲ | jcgrillo an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The issues they’ve had are almost all very recent. It has been bad for at least 18mo, maybe longer? I recall multiple work impacting outages at my previous employer extending back into 2024. Maybe even earlier than that? |
|
|
| ▲ | ellisv 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Most developers have experience using GitHub. The UI and concepts are familiar. The friction for adopting features like Actions is relatively low. |
| |
| ▲ | Mashimo 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The UI and concepts are familiar. I guess, but it's not like you can't learn how to create a pullrequest on bitbucket or how to create an issue on jira as well within a work day? That seems like the smallest thing when switching to a new company. > The friction for adopting features like Actions is relatively low. Yeah, I know almost nothing about the CI integration and actions when it comes to Github. Will look into it. Thank you. | |
| ▲ | not_ai 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | At one point it was also used as signaling that a company was “modern.” |
|
|
| ▲ | embedding-shape 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Honest question, why are companies interested in hosting on github? Mostly boils down to marketing and easier to establish a community. Almost every developer has an account there, leading to network effects being much larger, so if you're a new FOSS project, finding contributors and getting your project in front of other's eyes is much easier when you're on GitHub compared to your own Forgejo instance. With that said, I'd question if chasing "most external one-time contributors" or GitHub stars is the right way to actually run a FOSS project, personally I'd avoid thinking about those vanity-numbers as much as possible and focus on the project, code and contributors themselves. But, I've literally heard those two arguments for "why GitHub" countless of times over the years. |
| |
| ▲ | Mashimo 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Oh FOSS projects I totally understand. It's where I go to too. But closed source companies surly don't need to establish a community? | | |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Go with the flow, don't rock the boat and use what developers already know, are probably the most cited reasons I've heard. I've tried so many times in the past to argue for self-hosted setup that you fully control if you can afford it, things just get so much smoother and if you're a software development company, you probably want to own the software development workflow E2E so you can actually ship as fast as you want. | | |
| ▲ | Esophagus4 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I’ve argued the opposite most of the time in build vs buy. Buy in almost every case unless it’s a real competitive advantage to you. I know developers love to build, but do you think: 1) self-hosting git provides any competitive edge to the business over letting someone manage it? 2) it provides so much value that you’re willing to fund engineers to build, secure, support this on an ongoing basis? I’ve found the answer to those is No in both cases. The same reason you wouldn’t build your own internal chat tool, you’d use Slack. And you wouldn’t bother self-hosting your own Jira or documentation. Code hosting is code hosting, there’s no difference where it's hosted. There’s no slowdown in delivery with using GitHub - their March uptime was 99.5% which annoys some commenters but it’s fine. That’s 45 minutes downtime per month which is tolerable. You would spend way more effort and money building a jenky self-hosted solution to end up with a worse result. | | |
| ▲ | oasisaimlessly 15 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You don't have to 'build' anything. Just spin up a GitLab docker container. Bonus: If you put it behind a VPN, you never have to worry about updating it. |
|
| |
| ▲ | idkyall 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Usually, at large enough corporations, it's one of two things. Some random project gets open sourced, and it ends up on Github(see, for example, Salesforce) - or, more commonly, some subsidiary or acquisition had github and has either refused to migrate to the internal source system or the hassle of migration isn't worth it. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ryandrake 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don’t know why you would even really need hosted git or why you’d be affected by its downtime. Git is decentralized by design. One node going down should not stop development. You don’t need a “central hub” to keep working. I guess it’s all the other non-git stuff like issue tracking and other (unfortunately) centralized products on GitHub that causes disruption when they go down. Weird how GitHub built itself around a distributed VC system and then made all its other services centralized. |
| |
| ▲ | Mashimo 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I guess it’s all the other non-git stuff Yes, you want to run automated builds, unit test, end to end test, UI tests, make it easy for testers to deploy specific versions / tags to internal server. Also kick off builds for iOS on mac computers. We use Teamcity for that. Tracking of issues, feature and epics. Maybe also knowledge base / wiki. We use Jira. And pull requests. Bitbucket. |
|
|
| ▲ | stephenlf 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Onboarding construct workers is super easy. |
