That's like 100,000 USD. I keep thinking about making a rap video wearing a 10 TB gold chain surrounded by big booty girls with their naughty bits covered in m.2 SSD's while dissing the AI industry. Though I cant afford the RAM :-/
It’s sad that I can’t interpret if you mean to actually shoot your rap video on film, or have an AI generate it lol. Either way you’re going to need RAM.
Haha, reminds me off bringing down office mail servers by accidentally creating loops of emails back in the day... What is old is new again, but this time with probabilities :)
Companies are already using on-premise GitHub server, if they are using GitHub in the first place. There are many other self hosted solutions which are quite common in enterprise environment.
What is the quality-first, high uptime alternative to GitHub? My employer uses both GitHub and GitLab, and while I think GitLab is better, its quality also frankly sucks. It's riddled with bugs that have just been marinating on the issue tracker for years, and the most common "fix" for gnarly bugs in the CI platform is "revise the documentation to reflect the existing (broken) behavior".
*Stupid question*: What is so hard about self hosting one's own repo? I get it must be difficult for a mega corporation, but for companies like us, who have hundreds of repos but only 20 of them are regularly used, and concurrent read/write is relatively light -- considering our largest team is less than 20 persons, so even if all of them are reading/writing from the repo, it doesn't seem to be a huge issue.
Even for a bigger company, say 5x developers (we have about 100+ SWEs and maybe 10-20 other titles who use GitHub), is it really a big thing to self host their own repos? External applications are definitely on another level because you could have hundreds of concurrent visits easily.
> What is so hard about self hosting one's own repo?
Maybe nothing! I was genuinely asking. I still don't know what Actually Good™ forges are out there these days, generally suitable for corporate use in place of the likes of GitHub or GitLab. Forgejo? Something not based on Git?
It's amazing, before we even had ChatGPT, GitLab was building so much endless slop halfbaked crap in their pursuit of ever more "enterprise checkboxes". Now they have slowed right down, no doubt collapsing under the escalating maintenance weight of all the nonsense that was created, like the canaries in the vibe coding mines telling us of impending doom.
Now you go to their blog, theres a banner at the top announcing "GitLab Agentic AI whatever is GA (GENERAL AVAILABILITY)" and you try to click it its literally a fucking 404 not found. That's the level of their stability and quality. Try it for yourself:
Your favorite search engine or LLM will show you in a second, it's really easy.
The problem is that it's not enough. The fact that Github uses Git specifically is a technical detail; it could use mercurial equally easily, as Bitbucket used to. Github Actions, OWNERS files, PRs and review tools, issue tracker, wiki are all not Git features.
Not a chance. I think you need to spend some time in low ball corporate IT. It's just monkeys throwing faeces at the wall. We only just levered them off subversion...
(I use Fossil 100% offline for personal projects for ref)
Not really. I've been around a while. Git for about 15 years. Subversion before that. Perforce before that. rcs before that (back down to sun3 machines). Mostly Fossil now for personal things.
What I am saying is that people learn as much as they need to. They generally don't need to know any more git than is required to interact with github. If anything problematic comes up, they go in with a wrecking ball because they don't truly understand what they are doing. And git has a lot of wrecking balls available.
If you threw them at raw git and asked them to collaborate with someone they'd be up shit creek. They have no idea how SSH or email works for example.
I mean, there are solutions, but none of them seems to have a large enough mindshare and efficiency. (Even though Github's code review tools are pretty spartan.)
They can be. A PR can be made and code review conducted by submitting a patch to a mailing list. That's how the kernel and, I think, git itself is developed.
CI/CD is really a methodology. It just means integrating/deploying stuff as soon as its ready. So you just need maintainers to be able to run the test suite and deploy, which seems like a really basic thing.
True, workers can still commit to their local git.
I've been looking into having a separate git server that we can commit to and add plain ole git hooks to, and just having it be synced with github as a clone.
I'd rather recommend Forgejo (a fork of Gitea developed under the auspices of Codeberg e.V.) instead. The way in which Gitea broke the trust of the community seems like it probably should be avoided nowadays.
If GH has an issue, it seems to always be around 4pm or 5pm GMT. I'm starting to think that i should avoid any planned production releases around this time.
I did this in 2019, it avoided so many headaches. CI is better too since there's a nice clean mapping of build -> pod for everything and I can just exec in if something's borked.
It's not as bad as you think, I run the helm upgrade when patches come out, the backing store is S3 or managed SQL, it runs a nightly k8s cron called gitlab-backup which tarballs the whole thing into an s3 bucket with a single command restore should disaster strike. (This is part of the product, not a thing I wrote.)
I probably only babysit it for 30 minutes per year, including all the upgrades.
It depends how high you value your headaches, and how high, your org's downtime. Github not working accrues over the hourly rate of every developer affected, which is likely $70-$100 a hour. 10 hours of outage in a year affecting a team of 10 would cost north of $70k, enough to hire a part-time SRE dedicated just to tend to your Gitlab installation.
^ this. the last thing i want is to add to my workload. take my money and make my life easier, even if it means that for one hour every couple months i can't do anything
We did hire some, boss! Soshie, Vizzy and Dexter. They're AI, but they're supposed to be way better than a human SRE. At least that's what the Sintra salesguy told us.
Why hire anyone to fix a problem when you can make an AI agent to "fix" it, tell investors about it to pump the price, and not fix anything knowing that you have a monopoly?
Yes we did hire SREs, unfortunately they are in another continent and they only know how to pull others into the chat. We also have some AI too, do you want to try them? They are pretty good SREs, one of them wrote 100K lines of code in a week while another one reviews every line along the way. It was fantastic! Fantastic!! FANTASTIC!!!
You've heard of infrastructure as code, now presenting air strikes as code!
Need a new secret offensive operation? Create a new JSON file with the coordinates, make a merge request and get Commander approval, merge it, and our new proprietary GitHub action runner will deploy a drone in seconds!
This is far too simple. The correct way is to generate an NFT that's a screenshot from Google Maps of where you'd like to hit, and a blockchain-watching AI will spot it, figure out where you probably mean and send the coordinates to the fire control system.
https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/issues/16750
https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/issues?q=is%3Ais...
I really hope that didn't send emails out to people.
I was pissed that there weren't any sticks heading to the recycling out of the nodes otherwise I would make myself that chain :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_Go#Ko
Even self-hosting would have been more stable than sitting on GitHub as predicted more than half a decade ago. [0]
Now there is no 'CEO of GitHub' to contact this time (Satya does not care).
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22867803
Even for a bigger company, say 5x developers (we have about 100+ SWEs and maybe 10-20 other titles who use GitHub), is it really a big thing to self host their own repos? External applications are definitely on another level because you could have hundreds of concurrent visits easily.
What did I miss?
Maybe nothing! I was genuinely asking. I still don't know what Actually Good™ forges are out there these days, generally suitable for corporate use in place of the likes of GitHub or GitLab. Forgejo? Something not based on Git?
Now you go to their blog, theres a banner at the top announcing "GitLab Agentic AI whatever is GA (GENERAL AVAILABILITY)" and you try to click it its literally a fucking 404 not found. That's the level of their stability and quality. Try it for yourself:
https://about.gitlab.com/blog/
The problem is that it's not enough. The fact that Github uses Git specifically is a technical detail; it could use mercurial equally easily, as Bitbucket used to. Github Actions, OWNERS files, PRs and review tools, issue tracker, wiki are all not Git features.
(I use Fossil 100% offline for personal projects for ref)
I once read someone commenting "Nobody writes code by hand without looking syntax up".
Man, you are just outing yourself as a complete beginner, the field is way deeper than you imagine and it's not even close.
What I am saying is that people learn as much as they need to. They generally don't need to know any more git than is required to interact with github. If anything problematic comes up, they go in with a wrecking ball because they don't truly understand what they are doing. And git has a lot of wrecking balls available.
If you threw them at raw git and asked them to collaborate with someone they'd be up shit creek. They have no idea how SSH or email works for example.
PRs and code review are not. CI/CD is not.
I mean, there are solutions, but none of them seems to have a large enough mindshare and efficiency. (Even though Github's code review tools are pretty spartan.)
They can be. A PR can be made and code review conducted by submitting a patch to a mailing list. That's how the kernel and, I think, git itself is developed.
CI/CD is really a methodology. It just means integrating/deploying stuff as soon as its ready. So you just need maintainers to be able to run the test suite and deploy, which seems like a really basic thing.
I've been looking into having a separate git server that we can commit to and add plain ole git hooks to, and just having it be synced with github as a clone.
I did this in 2019, it avoided so many headaches. CI is better too since there's a nice clean mapping of build -> pod for everything and I can just exec in if something's borked.
I probably only babysit it for 30 minutes per year, including all the upgrades.
10 hours x 10 developers x $70 per hour = $7000, not $70000.
Working on the GitHub Azure migration and for years it's gone so well so far.
OK I have no idea about MSFT SREs, just to be /s.
… in all seriousness, that is hardly proof that Azure isn't having an outage.
its one signal, among others. and in any case, i wasn't trying to prove the parent commenter wrong. i was offering my own signal to the crowd.
Definitely annoying, but I'll try the hot take that, contrary to popular belief, GH is not critical infrastructure - or so I hope.
Please tell me no part of the Ukrainian air defense system depends on a gh action hook.
Need a new secret offensive operation? Create a new JSON file with the coordinates, make a merge request and get Commander approval, merge it, and our new proprietary GitHub action runner will deploy a drone in seconds!
It's also the only reason why I still need IPv4.