> I just don't like how they have to put out false claims like there are big problems with GH CI and Sponsors
These aren't false claims.
Thats my point.
Microsoft can afford to make these tools better; they just dont care.
Yes, its better than having nothing, but honestly you have to be wearing blinkers not to see the decline rn.
> Microsoft can afford to make these tools better; they just dont care.
They certainly have enough money, but can they actually improve it? Who could step in? How? Do you think more hiring would help? Or would it make it worse?
Leadership could try and step in by force. But they'd have to undermine whoever is running github actions to do so. It would be a huge, risky political move. And for what? Are they actually losing customers over gh actions? I doubt it. I'm just not sure anyone cares to spend that much political capital to "fix" something that is arguably not that broken.
Big companies also simply can't fix stuff that's broken internally. Its not a money thing. Its a culture & politics thing. Its a leadership thing.
For example, does anyone remember Google Code? It was a github-like code hosting service that predated github by many years. Compared to github, it was terrible. When github came out, google could have rewritten Code from the ground up to copy github's better design and better choices. (Kind of like android did with ios). But they didn't. Github kicked their butt for many years. But nothing happened. They couldn't fix it. Now google code is basically dead.
Or why didn't Adobe build a viable figma competitor? Why didn't microsoft make a successful iphone or ipad competitor? Why didn't intel win the contract to make the iphone CPU? These aren't money problems. Its something else.
I've only heard stories of a couple leaders who had the force of personality to fix problems like this. Like Steve Jobs. And Elon Musk pulls some wild stunts too. Frankly, I don't think I'd like to work under either of them.
Github has been entirely integrated into Microsoft's AI division since the last Github CEO left a couple of months ago (not much of a loss since he was responsible for Githubs AI enshittifaction). Those org-changes alone are plenty of reason to lose trust in Github's future. IMHO things can only get worse with an "AI first" division in charge and now is probably the best time to jump ship, at least it's the responsible thing to do for sufficiently large and professional projects (and I bet that ziglang is only one of many to follow).
> But they'd have to undermine whoever is running github actions
I'm not sure if anybody is running the GH Actions project at the moment beyond bare maintenance work and trying to keep the whole thing from collapsing into a pile of rubble. There is also no separate Github entity anymore within Microsoft, so nothing to "undermine".
> Are they actually losing customers over gh actions? I doubt it.
Did you read the article?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt Zig was ever a paying customer of github.
Damn, I guess if Zig really wanted to spite Github they should have stayed and continued being a drain in Microsoft's resources.