70
GitHub walks back plan to charge for self-hosted runners (www.theregister.com)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/programming@programming.dev
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Following publication of our original article, GitHub reversed its decision. The Microsoft-owned developer site has taken to X to admit it might have made a mistake by unilaterally announcing plans to charge people for using their own hardware to host runners.

“We’ve read your posts and heard your feedback,” GitHub said. “We’re postponing the announced billing change for self-hosted GitHub Actions to take time to re-evaluate our approach.”

The company said that it still intends to do something to help offset the “real costs” in running GitHub Actions via self-hosted runners, but “we missed the mark with this change by not including more of you in our planning.”

all 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 46 points 10 months ago

postponing

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 25 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    What “‘real costs’ in running GitHub Actions” are these dipshits even talking about? All they need to do is send a message to my runner. All the rest happens on my machine. Is the “real cost” pulling the latest changes?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 10 months ago

    Storing the repo, keeping a TLS session open to the runner 24/7 so when you poke the run button it does it now, not when the runner checks in next.

    It costs fuck all but with millions of runners it does add up.

    I hope this move and despite the pullback means more people will move away from GitHub and over to Codeberg, or alternatively run Forgejo themselves which is the software behind Codeberg

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago

    The real costs are the ~$100m they spend a year on developing GitHub and providing it for free to most people - including free CI.

    They charge 3x the cost price for runners so that they can actually make money. This change is so that they can't get undercut by alternative hosted runner providers.

    I do think they could have just explained that and it probably would have been more palettable than their "we're making it cheaper!" lie, but I guess there are also a lot of people that still think the only moral pricing is cost plus.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 22 points 10 months ago

    "We'll try again when you're not paying attention/when can figure out how to force or trick you into it."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 20 points 10 months ago

    MiCrOsOfT hAs BeEn A gReAt StEwArD oF gItHuB

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 8 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Well, that (surprisingly) didn't last long.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Do you want this new FREE new billing plan?

    [ Yes ] [ Ask me later ]

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • 4 comments in c/technology@lemmy.zip view that post
    [–] 26 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Note that they didn’t say they would never do it, only that they wouldn’t do it right now.

    Opinion: it’s coming soon.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 12 points 10 months ago

    LOL idiots, great way to push people to use open source runners though

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 6 points 10 months ago

    They're doomed to rust in peace eventually.

    There are way too many completely compatible alternatives.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •