> I think it's commendable that they're not limiting access to the site or (intentionally) throttling newcomers.

I don't think this is commendable at all. I give GitHub a lot of money and I'm tired of it being wasted with downtime.

It's a shame that the GitHub org that we use at my job that we pay a lot of money for gets affected the same way my personal nonsense does.

I don't know the architecture or any of that, but I feel like there could be (and it's not like they would've really known this until the last year or two with the massive spike) separate infrastructure for paid users/orgs vs free the same way they make the distinction with enterprise.

I get the massive load changes that they are under over the last two years, but why does a bunch of vibe coded slop take down the same resources that my company pays for every single month and has for years? I imagine properly splitting that out would be an absolute headache and not worthwhile for them vs stabilizing the rest of the service, but damn it sucks when I get blocked at work because GH is down.

▲

tempest_ an hour ago | parent [-]

Our GitlabCE instance has been sitting in the racks for nearly two years with almost 100% uptime running on 10 year old xeons that have long since paid for themselves.

Of course it is not free of all management but for our use case it is working.

There are hiccups with the CI runners from time time but nothing major and we have another machine in another rack that serves as a backup which can be brought up ~< 20 minutes.

I know companies have long since tossed their expertise for hosting their own stuff in favour of SaaS but at some point its hard to beat the up time of a single machine.

	▲	Uvix 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		We have the expertise. We don’t have the interest in fighting our internal “security” teams to keep running VMs.