67

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.”

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] PushButton@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Do you want this new FREE new billing plan?

[ Yes ] [ Ask me later ]

[-] mark@programming.dev 3 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

*presses Esc key*

[-] kindred@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 1 day ago

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

[-] nesc@lemmy.cafe 49 points 1 day ago
[-] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 28 points 1 day ago

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?

[-] slazer2au@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day 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

[-] joulethief@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 1 day ago

Won't somebody think of the shareholders? With your greedy attitude they won't be able to feed their poor families :(

[-] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 9 points 1 day 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.

[-] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 21 points 1 day ago

MiCrOsOfT hAs BeEn A gReAt StEwArD oF gItHuB

[-] Jayjader@jlai.lu 9 points 1 day ago

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

[-] nesc@lemmy.cafe 18 points 1 day ago

It will be implemented, they'll just do it slower.

this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2025
67 points (98.6% liked)

Programming

23969 readers
397 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

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