> I mean, I'm all for jumping on the Microsoft hate train, but not if it misses the elephant in the room.

That elephant didn’t even exist yet for the first few years of poor uptime shown in the graph in TFA… I don’t really disagree if we’re talking about the recent uptime issues, but how does that explain the years 2020-2023?

> I think centralized code hosting is pretty much going to get killed by AI. Just like it's doing to social media.

Private corporate codebases are a poor fit for GH because they don't benefit from public social graph effects. And the typical codebase isn't so large as to be technically challenging to deal with with OSS tools. I'd guess they make up a substantial share of revenue.

But once the reliability is called into question, self-hosted or smaller alternatives start to look good. Although there's some trickiness there if you want to be super cautious about making sure you can get to your code+infra in case of a vendor incident, especially if you're cloud based.

Saas code hosting seems to be the problem here. If companies self hosted, they could deal with the scaling problems themselves.

>What's preventing the same infrastructure challenges of millions of lines of AI-generated code destroying it?

There's something called "rate limits" that engineers not working for GitHub have probably heard of; it's this crazy idea that you should limit the load on your infra in order to avoid downtime. GitHub is not the first free service to ever have to deal with bots.

of all the awful things AI is doing and will be doing to society, killing centralized code hosting and social media will be its shinniest moments, both deserve to die painful deaths

Why is centralized code hosting getting killed? I'm running an opensource project, >99% of the code is AI generated, could not do this without GitHub. Ai generated source code needs a place where AIs and people can collaborate. I'm expecting GitHub to hugely successful, but mostly for an AI audience.

3 months post Microsoft acquisition, GitHub expanded the free plan to include unlimited private repos.

The next year they removed the limitation on collaborators on private repos for free users.

In the last 4 years they’ve significantly improved their project management tools. I think a lot of teams can make do with GitHub Projects, they’re pretty decent.

Who knows if any of these are directly because of Microsoft or not. But there has naturally been material improvements to GitHub in the years after being bought by Microsoft.

> GitHub hasn't changed in any positive way since the acquisition.

It's more like any positive actions they have had are being outright dismissed or forgotten. They removed several restrictions that Github had over private accounts, as well as github actions. Aside from the downtimes, the Github of today is fantastic compared to pre-acquisition Github.

I'm loving it, running an opensource project mostly AI generated, i don't have to think about version control, building and testing my app, running AI code review, hosting my docs website, API and cli to enable Claude Code to interact with everything, etc.

It provides huge value for anyone running an opensource AI generated project.

How on earth is Actions a downside?

GitHub has been basically the default for free public git hosting for a long time. I was curious what bitbucket has and it looks like the free tier is so limited, I can't imagine a lot of people hosting vibe coded open source there.

10x of nothing is nothing.

What is easier to 10x? A tent or a flat?

Would you care to cite your source that GitHub does not apply rate limits to unauthenticated requests?

It absolutely is.

The only concerns are if it were exposed to the public internet and scale. For personal stuff? It's spectacular.