Why dont companies host their own CI anyways.. Its really not that complicated. I see companies spending 20k a month on github actions.. It makes no sense to me.
We migrated to GitLab a while back, and run Buildkite for CI.
Our public mirrors for open source stuff that results in built binaries that we ship is built on GitHub Actions from the public GitHub mirror so we have build attestation from the source.
We seem to be seeing `Github Down` pretty regularly but that seems to be mostly the public facing ones. In the last one year that I have been using Enterprise Github regularly, I don't remember it being down anytime.
No such thing as bad PR these days, 24 hours later and we're on to the next thing, that's assuming people even saw it in their doom scroll feed. Gone are the days when everyone watches the same TV news or reads the same newspaper.
I'm just confused how we can be in an industry where "<shrug> what's the alternative, just buy MS and live with it" is making a strong comeback simultaneously as all the big tech giants, MS included, are telling us we can generate infinite code and cloud configuration for a reasonable per-token price.
Amazon og Google or OpenAI having a one-click port of Githubs daily experience and Githubs CI infrastructure seems like it would be a pretty straightforward proof-of-AI-concept for a critical audience.
That's the cult of Microsoft for you. They have always been an average to below average company but have benefited from incredible openness from its customers because for the longest time they were perceived as the only option. Their real product is Microsoft
Microsoft of today isn't a leader in anything they're not the only ones in.
> They have always been an average to below average company
I think about this every time I'd hit a corrupted Access database, corrupted Exchange store or OneDrive messing up a sync. Was it actually the hardware or just sloppy programming filled with race conditions?
I was going through some old emails in an @hotmail.com account only find some had their headers but completely blank bodies so I guess Microsoft's own servers get impacted by it too.
The issue isn't about us, but there are a lot of projects that are happening on github. I wanted to take a look at the sources of a random lib when i realized it was down, it wasn't about hosting some of my stuff
Man, it happens more and more that I can’t work because nix can’t fetch something from git or my elixir build fails because it needs to fetch a release from GitHub.
Even if I change my CI to something else, all the dependencies depend on GitHub (Not like there exists a cheap/free alternative where nix packages could be hosted ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)
I'd recommend the free (as in freedom) Git alternative to everyone: Codeberg. Super lightweight, without that vicious circle of knowing your code is being used to train AI. Free for hobby projects, and reasonably viable for professional ones.
People who migrate away from Github, what makes you think they're more reliable? All Git services are prone to massive surges in commit volume due to AI agents. At least if Github goes down, your boss is not going to blame you.
I'd rather stay in Github and maybe use another service purely as backup.
> I'd rather stay in Github and maybe use another service purely as backup.
Swap those two and you're on the right track. I think the best way to use GH is as a mirror for a self-hosted git instance, with or without web frontend. It gives you the reach of GH with the, dare I say it, reliability of self-hosted. It also gives you the chance to keep things off GH which you don't want to be there. Keep the self-hosted instance private for most things, use GH links for public access. When GH is down again you can always give people (temporary) access to your self-hosted instance if the need arrives.
> All Git services are prone to massive surges in commit volume due to AI agents.
You are probably wrong on that.
> You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex). Such projects having an unclear copyright status (see requirements § 2 (1) 1 and § 2 (1) 3) and furthermore have little safeguards to ensure that they do not include harmful code (c.f. § 2 (1) 5).
You missed the rest of the comment, which was to the effect that such AI agents are not allowed on Codeberg. Any abuse at scale will be easily detected and banned.
Are they going to ban your account based on an algorithm? Are they going to personally check your code? Are they going to scan your code base for AI generated code? How do they define “mostly”?
These seem like insane policies to have a critical business dependent on.
Not only that, their uptimes are still worse than GitHub.
I wonder how much internet-argument bandwidth would be saved if we used different words for "freedom from" vs "freedom to", instead of putting both things on a single scale and then arguing over which is "more free"...
Insecure human slop on top of that. Projects not checked in-depth by AI is recklessness at this point, prove me wrong with an example.
I've found 2 serious vulnerabilities in Librewolf (can crash computer from HTML page, from an iframe) as an example this week, as per their rule, agent isn't allowed to report it, guess we will just have to leave those critical around or wait around that a human discover them while attackers already exploit them in the wild :/
Codeberg doesn't want the world to be secure, quite shady, unless they care to explain what's the downside of discovering critical vulnerabilities with AI, especially automatically? Thinking that humans will write more secure programs than machines is just wrong and shows an outdated and dangerous mindset.
So they will never have these frequent downtime issues because they will never be bombarded by agents building millions of personal tools with no license applied. Clever.
Free as in freedom has had a rather specific meaning in software for the past 40+ years, which is "software that matches the Free Software definition." Codeberg runs on Forgejo, whose authors grant you the rights to run, study, modify, and distribute it - unlike GitHub, which is proprietary. (Indeed, there are many Forgejo instances besides Codeberg, it's not just a theoretical benefit.)
It is a ridiculous misinterpretation to assume it means "somebody else will host anything I upload, free of charge", which is of course not the case - not on GitHub either, by the way, their ToS just happens to be more friendly to slop.
(For understandable reasons, too; while M$ is making a killing from selling LLM access & Free Software as training data, the main "benefit" Codeberg sees is getting DDoSed by LLM scrapers 24/7 and vibecoders using up disproportionate amounts of resources.)
Hmm I have my Hugo website there, closed repo and build, in part, with LLMs. Never realized while setting thing up that both are not allowed tbh. I just wanted to not choose GH.
Do they really prohibit all use? My reading of their policy is that they mainly block vibe coding. It doesn't seem like LLM auto-complete or using it to review your code would run afoul of it.
I love and use Forgejo which they are both running and now developing within their ecosystem but development is so slow and such basic things are missing that one cannot help but think perhaps they should get some LLM assistance. At this rate they are very likely to end up a historical footnote.
One example Projects (boards). I would not necessarily call it missing for my own use case but it might as well not exist in its current state.
Label management is a mess too with almost no ease of use features. Lots of clicking when prior art already exists elsewhere.
Federation is another thing that's supposed to happen but isn't.
Action runners I like actually but their web UI is really confusing.
API is missing a lot of endpoints too. (Pretty straight forward for AI agents to work on as "good first issue")
No machine users or management of the same via Administrator. If you want to have a bot (not necessarily AI) you need to create a user with a hard to guess password and manage it by actually logging in as that user.
Another user will probably have their own set of things that matter to them.
As I've already said above, I do use it and love it but sort of half hoped Gitea would have proceeded farther since Forgejo forked away. It hasn't.
OneDev looks much more capable on surface to me today but I have not used it extensively yet and it has some features not included in the self hosted version. Not as much as open core projects but some.
Hosted services can't really be "free as in freedom". We can't know for sure what software they're actually running and users don't have any freedom in using their service since that is entirely at their pleasure. For something to be free the thing has to be able to move beyond its present controller.
TOS are not protection against scraping. Is there any reason to not assume by default that Codeberg gets used for training just like every other online collection of content?
Codeberg has its own issues with anti-scraping measures often impacting (not just annoying) users or some deep ideological bias; and I'm not talking about LLM/open source, which I agree with.
Why exactly do you think public code on Codeberg is not used to train AI? I would assume the opposite...it's unlikely to be Codeberg themselves doing it, but for sure your code is going to be used as training data somewhere.
"This endpoint is seeing a high influx of requests for this repository, to preserve the availability of Codeberg your request will not be processed. Sorry for the inconvenience and please try again later."
I've had issues recently with CI jobs in codeberg taking quite a bit of time for a runner to pick it up.
This is not a complaint, its a free offering and I appreciate alternatives, but just yesterday I moved one of my open source projects from codeberg to github after waiting 30+ minutes multiple times for CI to start.
i'll never defend microsoft, but it irks me to hear the phrase 'free as in freedom' used specifically to describe a service that , as an advertised benefit, restricts user freedom.
no thanks.
I don't have to be pro or against AI to avoid signing a deal with (another) devil.
p.s. : "my code won't be training AI if im on codeberg" is just straight delusion, regardless of their policies.
I think that page only displays outages if some manager at GitHub decides it is "sufficiently major" to display there.
GitHub has outages all the time without that page showing anything.
Another comment pointed to a third party alternative which is more accurate – https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/ – but that alternative isn't showing an outage right now either, since I believe it is being fed by GitHub.com's incident data.
They updated the status page now, it says they are "investigating degraded performance". Like, their web is 100 % down. But no, have to call it "degraded performance for some users, some services" etc.
Yes. It is incredibly frustrating that everything is hosted on GitHub nowadays. I wanted to install Bazzite (a Linux distro!) and I cannot download their ISO, I cannot download their recommended partition tool, I cannot even download Rufus to start formatting some drives. And then you go and check their status page and you get the "all good nothing wrong here". So annoying
It's frustrating that engineers, who should know better, design systems in such a way as to have single points of failure. We have the technology and knowledge to have reliable systems, but here we are.
The real underlying problem is hardware manufacturing (explained further here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49690354), which exerts centralizing pressure all the way up the stack. We should have pursued computer manufacturing in a print shops and printers kind of way instead of building large fabs, but that would have required foresight decades prior.
as someone who has been stuck in github for a hundred years and pays essentially zero attention to stars, eh.
for me the lock in is cheap data reliability and low chance of loss. downtime problems blow, but if they lost any of my data for any reason other than a eula/tos violation or some such then i'd run.
Regular reminder that if you just need a remote to collaborate with others and don't need stars commit graphs and all that social coding aspects, you can just host your git repo yourself on any cheap VPS.
I read recently that number of commits on github platform increased 5 times over the year - their infrastructure is under heavy load. It's due to AI revolution. Stay tuned to see 5x more features in your favorite apps. Great times are coming :-)
I'm surprised they even reach 1 nine of uptime (according to [1]), it certainly feels worse than that.
Maybe it would be better to measure uptime not as what percentage of time the site is up, but instead as how likely a randomly selected visitor is to be able to access the site.
That would adjust for the fact that the window of peak demand, e.g. the US workday, which is when Github tends to go down, is also when people need the service the most.
Your first argument is borderline unintelligent and selective and emotional and definitely off, your second argument is genius, though, I was wondering when anyone here would bring that up, so many of the status sites are a selective one way street to escaped sla obligations
[OP] ridowk | 6 hours ago
mrshu | 5 hours ago
wartijn_ | 5 hours ago
alpaca128 | 4 hours ago
shimms | 5 hours ago
Our CI is broken at the moment, unable to download tools used in various checks (gitleaks, etc).
lifeisloving | 4 hours ago
clivedup | 4 hours ago
shimms | 4 hours ago
Our public mirrors for open source stuff that results in built binaries that we ship is built on GitHub Actions from the public GitHub mirror so we have build attestation from the source.
Sometimes you're just dependent on things.
DishyDev | 5 hours ago
countWSS | 5 hours ago
Kholin | 5 hours ago
> The server didn't respond in time.
alfiedotwtf | 5 hours ago
Kholin | 5 hours ago
fragmede | 5 hours ago
dom96 | 5 hours ago
BoingBoomTschak | 5 hours ago
Brajeshwar | 5 hours ago
beberlei | 5 hours ago
bagels | 5 hours ago
faangguyindia | 5 hours ago
cube00 | 5 hours ago
No such thing as bad PR these days, 24 hours later and we're on to the next thing, that's assuming people even saw it in their doom scroll feed. Gone are the days when everyone watches the same TV news or reads the same newspaper.
bonesss | 5 hours ago
Amazon og Google or OpenAI having a one-click port of Githubs daily experience and Githubs CI infrastructure seems like it would be a pretty straightforward proof-of-AI-concept for a critical audience.
bagels | 5 hours ago
pluc | 4 hours ago
Microsoft of today isn't a leader in anything they're not the only ones in.
cube00 | 2 hours ago
I think about this every time I'd hit a corrupted Access database, corrupted Exchange store or OneDrive messing up a sync. Was it actually the hardware or just sloppy programming filled with race conditions?
I was going through some old emails in an @hotmail.com account only find some had their headers but completely blank bodies so I guess Microsoft's own servers get impacted by it too.
JanneVee | 5 hours ago
ipsum2 | 5 hours ago
jhgkblv | 5 hours ago
Lucasoato | 5 hours ago
JoshStrobl | 5 hours ago
[OP] ridowk | 5 hours ago
matkoniecz | 5 hours ago
AyanamiKaine | 5 hours ago
Even if I change my CI to something else, all the dependencies depend on GitHub (Not like there exists a cheap/free alternative where nix packages could be hosted ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)
r_lee | 4 hours ago
esFran | 5 hours ago
Muhammad523 | 5 hours ago
PalmPilotProMax | 5 hours ago
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free~~~
aurareturn | 5 hours ago
I'd rather stay in Github and maybe use another service purely as backup.
atiedebee | 5 hours ago
pixelesque | 5 hours ago
https://status.codeberg.org/status/codeberg
aurareturn | 4 hours ago
I'd much rather stay with Github than a small provider.
Shorel | 5 hours ago
aurareturn | 3 hours ago
Detect it using an algorithm and automatically ban your business account?
Do people not see how insane that policy is?
hagbard_c | 5 hours ago
Swap those two and you're on the right track. I think the best way to use GH is as a mirror for a self-hosted git instance, with or without web frontend. It gives you the reach of GH with the, dare I say it, reliability of self-hosted. It also gives you the chance to keep things off GH which you don't want to be there. Keep the self-hosted instance private for most things, use GH links for public access. When GH is down again you can always give people (temporary) access to your self-hosted instance if the need arrives.
Lapel2742 | 5 hours ago
You are probably wrong on that.
> You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex). Such projects having an unclear copyright status (see requirements § 2 (1) 1 and § 2 (1) 3) and furthermore have little safeguards to ensure that they do not include harmful code (c.f. § 2 (1) 5).
https://codeberg.org/codeberg/org/src/branch/main/TermsOfUse...
aurareturn | 4 hours ago
If Github truly becomes unreliable and people migrate to this niche service en mass, they'll ignore their no AI coding policy.
chrismorgan | 4 hours ago
aurareturn | 3 hours ago
Are they going to ban your account based on an algorithm? Are they going to personally check your code? Are they going to scan your code base for AI generated code? How do they define “mostly”?
These seem like insane policies to have a critical business dependent on.
Not only that, their uptimes are still worse than GitHub.
dutchbart | 5 hours ago
vrighter | 5 hours ago
aabhay | 5 hours ago
vrighter | 5 hours ago
Shish2k | 5 hours ago
1718627440 | 4 hours ago
philipallstar | 4 hours ago
vrighter | 4 hours ago
r_lee | 4 hours ago
might as well say Google is a free Git alternative because you're free to use another one since you can't use it for git
bheztio | 4 hours ago
_heimdall | 3 hours ago
otabdeveloper4 | 5 hours ago
Hendrikto | 5 hours ago
solyin | 4 hours ago
pixel_popping | 3 hours ago
I've found 2 serious vulnerabilities in Librewolf (can crash computer from HTML page, from an iframe) as an example this week, as per their rule, agent isn't allowed to report it, guess we will just have to leave those critical around or wait around that a human discover them while attackers already exploit them in the wild :/
Codeberg doesn't want the world to be secure, quite shady, unless they care to explain what's the downside of discovering critical vulnerabilities with AI, especially automatically? Thinking that humans will write more secure programs than machines is just wrong and shows an outdated and dangerous mindset.
Humans+AI > Humans.
foolserrandboy | 3 hours ago
shiomiru | 3 hours ago
It is a ridiculous misinterpretation to assume it means "somebody else will host anything I upload, free of charge", which is of course not the case - not on GitHub either, by the way, their ToS just happens to be more friendly to slop.
(For understandable reasons, too; while M$ is making a killing from selling LLM access & Free Software as training data, the main "benefit" Codeberg sees is getting DDoSed by LLM scrapers 24/7 and vibecoders using up disproportionate amounts of resources.)
teekert | 3 hours ago
slaymaker1907 | an hour ago
dizhn | 5 hours ago
lexicality | 5 hours ago
dizhn | 4 hours ago
Label management is a mess too with almost no ease of use features. Lots of clicking when prior art already exists elsewhere.
Federation is another thing that's supposed to happen but isn't.
Action runners I like actually but their web UI is really confusing.
API is missing a lot of endpoints too. (Pretty straight forward for AI agents to work on as "good first issue")
No machine users or management of the same via Administrator. If you want to have a bot (not necessarily AI) you need to create a user with a hard to guess password and manage it by actually logging in as that user.
Another user will probably have their own set of things that matter to them.
As I've already said above, I do use it and love it but sort of half hoped Gitea would have proceeded farther since Forgejo forked away. It hasn't.
OneDev looks much more capable on surface to me today but I have not used it extensively yet and it has some features not included in the self hosted version. Not as much as open core projects but some.
matkoniecz | 5 hours ago
(You are not required to agree for such use in tos, but it will be used anyway)
(Not by Codeberg operators, to be clear)
roenxi | 5 hours ago
1718627440 | 4 hours ago
alpaca128 | 4 hours ago
mejutoco | 4 hours ago
and some discipline can go a long way.
BoingBoomTschak | 4 hours ago
raincole | 4 hours ago
There is no such circle. If you put your work in public, it has been used to train AI. That's it.
notrealyme123 | 3 hours ago
peanut-walrus | 4 hours ago
r_lee | 3 hours ago
"This endpoint is seeing a high influx of requests for this repository, to preserve the availability of Codeberg your request will not be processed. Sorry for the inconvenience and please try again later."
_heimdall | 3 hours ago
This is not a complaint, its a free offering and I appreciate alternatives, but just yesterday I moved one of my open source projects from codeberg to github after waiting 30+ minutes multiple times for CI to start.
serf | 3 hours ago
no thanks.
I don't have to be pro or against AI to avoid signing a deal with (another) devil.
p.s. : "my code won't be training AI if im on codeberg" is just straight delusion, regardless of their policies.
1718627440 | 17 minutes ago
mkagenius | 5 hours ago
I usually check this and then doubt my network might be at fault if they don't show outages.
skissane | 5 hours ago
GitHub has outages all the time without that page showing anything.
Another comment pointed to a third party alternative which is more accurate – https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/ – but that alternative isn't showing an outage right now either, since I believe it is being fed by GitHub.com's incident data.
mrshu | 5 hours ago
This is indeed correct.
skissane | 4 hours ago
Maybe I spoke too soon in labelling your page “more accurate”?
mrshu | 58 minutes ago
exploraz | 5 hours ago
https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/pyynvrm1vskw
adrian_b | 5 hours ago
hurfdurf | 4 hours ago
bheztio | 4 hours ago
egorfine | 4 hours ago
chilli_axe | 5 hours ago
skissane | 5 hours ago
mat0 | 5 hours ago
fock | 5 hours ago
(the anduril-type folks using nix for high-assurance setups!)
Gander5739 | 4 hours ago
Flere-Imsaho | 4 hours ago
isolay | 3 hours ago
teekert | 3 hours ago
txrx0000 | an hour ago
The real underlying problem is hardware manufacturing (explained further here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49690354), which exerts centralizing pressure all the way up the stack. We should have pursued computer manufacturing in a print shops and printers kind of way instead of building large fabs, but that would have required foresight decades prior.
ashishb | 3 hours ago
https://ashishb.net/tech/github-stars/
serf | 3 hours ago
for me the lock in is cheap data reliability and low chance of loss. downtime problems blow, but if they lost any of my data for any reason other than a eula/tos violation or some such then i'd run.
ashishb | 3 hours ago
jareklupinski | 2 hours ago
borisgolovnev | 5 hours ago
exploraz | 5 hours ago
czarek_pl | 5 hours ago
r_lee | 4 hours ago
who is asking for this?
geniium | 5 hours ago
gnegggh | 5 hours ago
solyin | 5 hours ago
renehsz | 4 hours ago
Maybe it would be better to measure uptime not as what percentage of time the site is up, but instead as how likely a randomly selected visitor is to be able to access the site.
That would adjust for the fact that the window of peak demand, e.g. the US workday, which is when Github tends to go down, is also when people need the service the most.
[1]: https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/
proxyscore | 3 hours ago
gib444 | 4 hours ago
ed_chambers | 3 hours ago
pluc | 2 hours ago