The only good thing about it is their very generous limits for "open source" projects (it doesn't even have to be free software AFAIK, just the source has to be visible to everyone).
The CI service itself is an absolute trash fire caused by the usual Microsoft NIH, and if they have financial means not to deal with it anymore, I see no reason for them to waste their limited development time on dealing with it.
Where else would the CI service for a Microsoft product be invented? NIH is a weird insult in this context. If Microsoft had instead acquired a CI service you’d be complaining about how they’re reducing competition.
Microsoft had their own CI service and it existed before GitHub Actions did, it was renamed Azure Dev Ops but it existed before GitHub Actions and it was largely similar from what I remember.
> Where else would the CI service for a Microsoft product be invented?
FYI Azure has its own CI service and that's pretty bad too.
>it doesn't even have to be free software AFAIK, just the source has to be visible to everyone
With the implication that MS is free to harvest it for LLM training?
They could have easily done that without all the insults.
I agree it’s unprofessional, but at least we’re talking about GHA, even if tangentially, because there’s a lot to talk about and not much of it is good.
I would agree if they weren't so clearly deserved. Calling shit out as being shit is fine.
Just because you think something is shit does not mean it becomes gospel for the rest of us. Millions of other people are fine with GitHub, respect their choice.
He didn't insult the people who are still using github.