Refunds and compensation are different though aren’t they? I would not see being refunded for the billing as compensation, compensation would be something more like $x extra to make up for the inconvenience / to say sorry essentially.
I think the fair side of this is that you have to make tradeoffs when you design things. Scaling problems are design problems, but whether they were mistakes or not really depends on how predictable that scaling was.
Car analogies are typical, so I'll add in there.
My car can take the four of us, and we can load it up with things from the shops. I can put a bunch of heavy tins of food in there, or some DIY things, but if I put several tons of stones in the boot it'll totally fuck it up.
Is that a design problem?
Not really, it's a relatively cheap regular car, and it failed at a certain scale.
It would be a design problem if it were a flatbed truck, despite it being the same scaling that showed the problem.
Making my car resilient enough to take that weight would require tradeoffs that would either make it worse for other jobs I want it to do or at least add significantly to the cost.
This is similar in engineering software systems too, you can make it handle scaling up better, but this can require a much more complex architecture that may make it slower at smaller scales. It can make it more complicated to work with, add additional risks of failure as well.
Isn't this the massive problem? You're trying to do everything, and you can't, and you're trying to do it for everyone all at once, and have tied it all together so much that scaling up gets worse. If it's more than twice as hard to cope with twice the use, then you have to charge a bunch more to customers as you grow - and that's for your customers to get no actual benefit.
> GitHub is not perfect but I don't think it's "degraded faster" at all. It's _grown_ faster.
The experience has degraded. It's really, really bad. I've seen companies spending thousands and thousands of dollars weekly in developer time *hitting rerun on broken actions*. It's so expensive to start with then so expensive in how awful it is to use.
Something I really don't get I guess is what out of all of this actually needs to be cross-project. How much of my github use needs access to something that isn't running on the same machine? I worked with a team building things actively, maybe 20 devs? That's not really a large set of users. Let's say 10 devs with the workload of 20, the cheapest plan would be $40/mo, enterprise would be ~$200. Would ten heavy users really max out a 64GB ram, 6+8 core new i5 with dual nvme drives, a gigabit connection and unlimited traffic? That's about $40 at hetzner for a box.
I'm not arguing a big federated position, I just don't really get why some of these enormous companies need to be so centralised. It feels like the problem is trying to be a big interlinked thing, and failing at it. The only things I can think of are
1. Links between issues
2. Accounts
3. Search
The first is mostly solved with literally just links, accounts isn't a huge problem and search is fair enough - but search is utterly awful and I cannot find things within one single repo or organisation reliably. So global stuff is irrelevant.
> And it's had to expand into the AI field, which is not an incremental thing like "hey let's launch a new feature or better dashboards." Nobody knows what AI wants to be when it grows up
If github persists in being utterly shit for developers, it won't be around to find out. I'm not sure at all what part of the AI stuff needs to make everything else bad, and I'm extremely bullish on AI and agentic coding.
To really hammer this last point home, as agentic coding means we can do a lot more and faster - the unreliability of github has become much more apparent and impactful. Unreliable tests, unreliable code pulling and pushing, unreliable diffs. You're making the agents jobs harder, making the devs jobs harder exactly in the place they now spend much more time.
It makes github dramatically more expensive as a place to work. Also just really fucking annoying.
I think the general answer is that it would take real development effort to make federation work, and having to have compatibilty with other installations slows down your own pace of possible features -- I think these things are undeniable. Arguably worth it for society/the community (I wish we had more open standard federation and less centralization), but from the point of view of the company will it actually lead to increased profits sufficient to justify? In fact, it may do the opposite, if you are one of the largest, then lock-in is better for your profitability. Compatibility with other services is only important for the small upstarts trying to get customers from the largest.
I don't like it, but I think we will get proprietary centralization as long as we have capitalism of the sort we have.
I get what you mean, I think what I'm pretty stuck on is what is the centralisation solving? Federated messages dealing with lots of things flowing back and forth and live updates, etc is one thing - but what is it about GH that makes much of a difference when things are in one place or many? Much of the work is done in very isolated sections.
Imagine each organisation/user was run with completely isolated data, and you used something like google sign in for auth (so one global sign in, then oauth).
What wouldn't work? Global search, that I get. I struggle to think of other things though. Maybe whether links between issues across orgs updates? Every commit, diff, code browser, permissions for writing, reading, org level search, stars, would work with zero federated sort of search-y things. Package management, issue tracking, all that would be the same.
Forks followed by PRs? Not sure that would be much different - maybe you'd have to raise an issue on the original project with a link to your new repo & branch.
Some of my attraction to github is just that I am used to and like the UI, and I get annoyed on another platform where I don't understand the UI and don't know where to find things or how to do things (like set up free CI for open source project, or debug existing CI for a PR).
Other than that... auto-linking to issues, prs, and code (with auto-expansion of excerpt in issue) cross-project is nice?
But you are right, git is theoretically something where separate projects are fairly isolated, which does make it more mysterious that competitors are having trouble and it seems like github has some kind of network effect lock-in anyway. It's a good question.
Buying hardware is paying a "random corporation". Make the massive hardware purchase after finding out if you have enough demand to buy rather than rent,
And even less than someone who wrote an interpreter for the script, less than someone who also chanted times tables while doing it.
More thinking isn’t a simple good thing. Given a limit to how much thought I can give any specific task, adding extra work may mean less where it’s most useful.
It is a good faith argument, my point is exactly that the actual scripting was not part of the relevant thought any more than the interpreter would have been.
It depends if the interesting part of the solution is the website for you. Maybe it is and that’s fine but for others it isn’t. Maybe they’ve got a cool backend thing and the ui isn’t the key part.
If it helps compare, you might have a full desire to manage a tricky server and all the various parts of it. It’d be removing the fun to just put a site on GitHub pages rather than hosting it on a pdp11. But if you want to show off your demo scene work you wouldn’t feel like you’d missed out on the fun just putting things up on a regular site.
I had a look and knew they seemed to be about £15 here, I couldn’t easily find second hand ones in the uk (though they’re not uncommon at shops). For £40 I can get a 7.5 inch black and white screen setup (trmnl byod xaio https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005009532501677.html)
Lots of the tags I see though do have Bluetooth or maybe WiFi for updating as well.
I do really like eink things, I want to setup a nice 13 inch one which is now more like £160 so becoming more realistic for my to buy for fun.
I’m going to have to look more into these tags because if there’s cheap second hand ones they’d be awesome.
The other explanation is that often these are just mistakes that occur with a team of experts in their field but not data management, without a budget for building a more robust system, manually doing a lot of things with data. It's so easy to copy and paste something into the wrong place, to sort by a field and get things out of order, all kinds of issues like that.
On the other hand, any time a hypothesis appears significant, the first reaction should be to verify that all the data going into the calculation is correct, rather than just assume it is. In my day-to-day industry experience, significant results come far more often from incorrect data than an actual discovery.
reply