Programming

24065 readers

549 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz

UlrikHD@programming.dev

GitHub walks back plan to charge for self-hosted runners (www.theregister.com)

submitted 1 week ago by cm0002@lemy.lol to c/programming@programming.dev

12 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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 9 points 1 week 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.