Ghostty is leaving GitHub
mitchellh.com
mitchellh.com
Nobody should cry over a SaaS, of all things. But GitHub has meant so much more to me than that (all laid out in the post). I have an unhealthy relationship with it. Its given me so much and I'm so thankful for it. But, it's not what it used to be. I don't know.
We've been discussing it off and on for months, really started seriously discussing it a couple weeks ago, and made the final decision a few days ago. Putting metaphorical pen to paper and hitting "publish" makes it so very real.
I'm sure folks will make fun of me for this. It is a stupid thing. But I truly love GitHub, and I hope they find their way.
Thanks for being human and making ergonomic software for humans.
This quote from the post resonated with me:
> I want to get work done and it doesn't want me to get work done. I want to ship software and it doesn't want me to ship software.
The sentiment is shared, and github is not the only service making me feel like that, it feels like everything on the web is more flimsy and low quality nowadays. Constant outages, bugs, UI papercuts, incomplete features, what in the world is going on?
KISS and you sleep better.
That and the problem of forever chasing trends and never saying: "It's done" without reinventing everything every couple of years (trends again)
Sounds too easy? It is of course simplified, but the core still holds true.
GitHub just worked, but they had to migrate to React because "that's what everyone else uses"... Pure Enshittification.
They seem to have changed the primary source of data in the issues and pull requests tabs (w/o filters applied) from the underlying database to the elasticsearch search index, which has the side effect that there's a noticeable delay between state change of an issue/pr and an update in the UI. But as seen today, these can get out of sync, and apparently they even had data loss in the index.
I would really like to know their reasoning for making that change. I can totally imagine that they wanted to "simplify" so the UI uses only a single data source instead of two.
As a user it's incredibly annoying to have a delay between issue/pr state changes and the search index picking it up.
When the outage happened yesterday I sort of figured it was something I had been noticing building up or something.
With that said, Mitchell complains about outages. These started directly after Microsoft acquisition[4] and are attributed to migration from AWS to Azure.
[1] https://github.blog/engineering/architecture-optimization/ho...
[2] see html source for tags
Yesterday we saw PR pages that displayed no error, just displayed wrong info. I would have preferred to get an error page than outdated or empty lists. I was guessing this was related to the React migration but I don't really know.
Like, what user-hostile intention was the reasoning behind that? I am literally imagining a product manager smoking a cigar and laughing at the RUM session replays of me losing my shit.
No AI needed at all. Only humans.
On the other, the economy and market conditions are brutal for the little guys. Incumbent behemoths hoovering up value, talent and financing.
Instead of shaking things up as usual when a major paradigm shift hits, AI has mostly been a centralizing, consolidating force. Not that I was expecting it to be otherwise, but it's certainly dismaying to witness.
Or am I being too pessimistic / glorifying the past?
It's easier than ever to make your own furniture. IKEA is bigger than ever.
It's easier than ever to publish a video game. Steam is bigger than ever.
It's easier than ever to 3D-print tractor parts. John Deere is bigger than ever.
It's easier than ever to switch to solar power. The petroleum industry is bigger than ever.
One person reverse-engineered Coca Cola, made an exact taste-alike and published the formula. You can make some at home. Coca Cola is bigger than ever.
Something fundamental is wrong with the economy.
In this case: these statements aren't contradictory, they're complementary. It's easy to publish a game on Steam, where the audience are and the money is. It's also easy to publish on itch.io where no money is.
Economies of scale make it so that your home made furniture will still be more expensive than ikea. Same for the Coca Cola example.
For tractor parts, you would still need to make sure they don't break and work within small tolerances.
I bet a small team of the quality of the kind developers who are attracted to hacking on Ghostty could recreate the subset of GitHub functionality they actually need in ~six months. It's just the problem of how to pay for the ongoing care, maintenance and hosting? Maybe another opportunity for Mitchell's particular brand of philanthropic OSS.
Of course, you lose out on some things like ease of user access and various protections.
Full github/gitlab: git and Gogs, Gitea, Forgejo.
Companies know how to make good product, but if they don't have "new and shiny" to impress us anymore, then their only alternative is to make things worse so they can heel turn and then make things "better" by unmaking all of the worse things they did.
They can also milk their customers coming and going in the process.
It's not "enshittify or lose", its just raw greed. Things will get better again, either that or a competitor will destroy them. Enshittification is just the current meta and a new one will come soon enough.
I think it’s “find natural monopoly and reduce costs (aka enshittify)”.
Github is a natural monopoly and users cannot go anywhere. Unless you’re famous like Mitchell Hashimoto.
If you think you need those sweet GitHub stars, I can't help you.
> If you think you need those sweet GitHub stars, I can't help you.
The majority of users need it.
https://lists.sr.ht/~machocam/public-inbox/%3C46e343ec-c932-...
1. The company builds a moat and just remains shit.
2. New entrants either displace the company entirely (most likely) or competition slows the enshittification process (distant second) or reverses it (almost never).
Companies aren't getting cheap loans right now so they're desperate to juice their stocks so that upper management can secure their bonuses.
That's why "get shitty" is necessary.
When they've wrung it dry, pocketed all of the crumbs of raw cash they can get, then they'll either collapse due to overmilking their products or they'll realize that the only way to refatten the calf is to bring in new customers, so they'll unshittify it for the fresh infusion of customer money.
It's a cycle, and one I predict will inevitably lead to many of these companies' collapse.
What about lock-in, being a monopoly? Why wouldn’t you maximize on saving costs? Sure some people leave, but the majority is not going anywhere. And if the platform dies they’ve made more money than to keep it alive.
I think it's that company management has no incentive to do well. So they have no reason to push this down to the bottom tier of workers who actually make the products. The feedback loop is open. They make an order, the product gets worse, the line goes up, they don't know the product got worse and they have no reason to care anyway.
Slop didn't start with AI.
The West already forgot how to manufacture things, and we are now forgetting how to code: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47907879
I am not again performance bonuses, but they should be attach to better metrics. Eg the number of happy users is still up in 3 years time. Or something like this.
GitHub back in the day was a healthy version of "Move fast and break things". I wonder what's different.
Another gigantic unspoken issue is that people have started building tons of stuff with React on purpose for some reason.
This is, in fact, on topic: github actions seemed to me like a bad idea from the start, to me, but I let my co-workers and "network effects" convince me that I was being grumpy and that it was fine, and so we've adopted it. And now ... here we are. It was exactly as bad I thought it was, and it reflected a broken engineering culture.
Yes, it does.
> React is getting a bad rap because it’s visible when the issue is clearly their backend.
Two things can be bad! Except that in this case one of them is unnecessarily bad, because nobody forced them to use a front end system which defaults to terrible failure handling.
It's no wonder my jobs feed is flooded with senior engineering positions at GitHub (one wonders if they're growing, or jettisoning dead weight) but I can't imagine it's a good look for the resume to put GitHub on it at this point.
What's hilarious about that script is that the solution is so simple: use a less-than comparison instead of an equals. That's really, really all it would have taken to fix the issue. And yet https://github.com/actions/runner/pull/3157 was opened on 2024-02-17 and was merged on 2025-08-21, a full 18 months (plus a few days) later! It took literally 18 months for them to merge a bugfix that is trivially obvious to see is correct.
Yeah, the problems at GitHub ran (and still run) deep.
P.S. Yes, there are busy-wait issues in that code, which should have been addressed by bringing back the check for the `sleep` command and using it if available, falling back on the CPU-burning busy-wait only if `sleep` was unavailable. But the most revealing thing is the 18 months to merge a trivial-to-verify PR. That, more than the bad busy-wait loop, is the fundamental indicator of brokenness at GitHub under Microsoft's ownership.
I think the "ridiculously dramatic" part is the whole love letter to GitHub, not the frustration.
And I think it is fair to say that it is ridiculously dramatic. Which is okay, of course, I'm not criticising here. Just like it would feel ridiculously dramatic (at least to me) if someone explained that they cried today when they stopped their subscription to Netflix in order to move to another service, because they love Netflix so much.
I don't think it's ridiculously dramatic to feel sad about great tools rusting or makerspaces closing...
I am just saying that when Mitchell mentioned it being "ridiculously dramatic", I think he was not talking about the frustration but rather about the fact that he cried about leaving GitHub.
It's okay to feel sad about something and to also feel that it's ridiculously dramatic to feel sad about it.
Thanks for the downvotes though.
Not just the web either. It feels like the whole world is in a race to throw shit together and cash out as quickly as possible: influencers, hustle culture, enshittification, etc.
My pet theory is that all of the global chaos around the climate, politics, pandemic, etc. is leading people to no longer believe in the future. Once you lose that, all that's left to care about is the right now. No one takes the time to scrimshaw the deckrails on a ship they believe is sinking.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Or perhaps another adaptation:
God, grant me the serenity
to accept the enshittification I cannot change
the courage to improve the things I can
and the wisdom to know the difference.People need to stop bemoaning it, and think and do something. The enshittification is an idiotic, failing, extremely short-sighted strategy.
It's a huge opportunity - your competition has stopped investing in its product, fired its talent, treats its customers with utter contempt, and is managed by imbeciles. Who is a better target for disruption? Hire the talent, market your quality, treat your customers with respect, point out the BS your competition does every time they do it. Stop staring at your navel.
We each have to work on our areas of quality - and when everyone starts doing that, the world changes.
There's no need to worry about a threat that has been theorized for 70 years (and may very well never happen) when there are actual, real catastrophes happening right now.
[1] Well, except for those who didn't make it through. They are not here by definition, but their memory is still fresh.
Have you ever tried to run anything from the 80/90s era? Segfault everywhere, "fatal error was successful", kernel panic, BSOD, screen freeze for any reason and its opposite.
Nothing serves better good all time than bad memory as they say.
Not that the gigabit of useless crap to show essentially a few ko of text is fine, but the abuses and horrors that humans commit just shifted a bit where they land, it's not like there was a time were we had a land free of human dirty stuffs.
I take it you're agreeing with the sentiment since you had to go back 40-50 years to make your point.
And I mean, they clearly can; your own contributions are proof of that. We can all do better and the decline isn't a prescription we all need to follow. Regardless, it's tough to watch. Github used to be such an exciting and promising platform.
No, it's not. There are things we like/love in our life, and we rightfully get sad when things go bad in the camps we like, support.
> I'm sure folks will make fun of me for this. It is a stupid thing. But I truly love GitHub, and I hope they find their way.
I personally won't and will be angry to the people who do. Been there, done that for different things. We're human, this is normal.
For finding their way, I can't be that optimistic, unfortunately. Sorry about that.
Leaving any emotions aside, all the arguments you gave are technical and carry weight: we are not always in the mood for OSS work -- or even have the time and energy, which happens to be the much more oft limitation -- and when we are, we want our infra to just work. If it does not, that might kill your motivation for a week. Or a month.
For an OSS contributor, the main one even, this is actually bad news. You are doing both yourself and your community a big service by making this difficult decision.
Not everyone can do it. Respect.
And boy, does it hurt.
I'd be absolute crushed if Linux (for example) morphed into something I could not/no longer wanted to use, part of the reason I use open source wherever I can is because that is less likely to happen, Inkscape is still inkscape nearly 20 years after I started using it, so is Gimp, so is KDE, they've all changed but the essence of them is still the same (so has Linux).
Ghostty will be fine wherever it lives because people follow the project and not where it's hosted. Best of luck!
> Since then, I've opened GitHub every single day. Every day, multiple times per day, for over 18 years. Over half my life. A handful of exceptions in there (I'd love to see the data), but I can't imagine more than a week per year
How could you not feel this way about a tool you willingly use this much? Perhaps if your employer is forcing you to use it, its different. But maintaining OSS? that's a labor of love. How could you not get emotional?
I thought that GitHub was so unreliable that it would be better to self host instead of use the service [0]. It turns out that 6 years later, that was the case and it doesn't sound crazy anymore.
The problem is GitHub was neglected and the AI agents ran it into the ground and we need to now self host.
If you're still considering vendors, I think you'll find some of the keep it simple ethos can still be found among OSS friendly vendors -- Codeberg, etc. Good quality & uptime doesn't have to be expensive - just grounded by people that care enough to reject the scope creep and focus on doing one thing well.
Mitchell, when I was in 10th grade and had to pick my streams which led me to pick comp-sci/stem rather than finance (I am going to college soon), I thought of my dream life and it was being on a vacation/beach using Linux or terminals and opening github and contributing to open source software. I simply couldn't imagine my life without terminal (funny because ghostty is the terminal that I use)
You said that you have been with Github for 18 years, that is longer than the time I have been on earth. You were (and in some sense are!) living my dream life in that sense and github fulfilled its role, it had helped you until recently when it has started to get worse and worse.
my point is you have an special bond with github and for good reason,so to remove an somewhat integral part of all of this (github) after so long will have emotional feelings and outbursts.
I hope that you are doing fine, Ghostty/your-work has a positive impact on my life and gives a hope by being a relaible tool I rely on, I wish nothing but the best for Ghostty and you personally.
It's okay to have emotions. I have similar emotions. I'm GitHub User 22723 which is effectively the same as you (considering there's ~180m GH accounts nowadays)
My version of your post reads differently:
"GitHub only gets better if people who give a shit stick around to make it better"
Walking away would be easy. I felt that way when I left Heroku ~six years ago. I left that job and never opened the Heroku dashboard again, after nearly a decade of happy use. I felt that it was irredeemable, and though it took a while, Salesforce did eventually succeed in running it fully into the ground.
I don't feel the same about GitHub. It is precisely because it's precious that I can't walk away. I'm not the only one here who feels that way.
In the past few years, GitHub has absorbed both a fundamental paradigm shift (agentic coding) AND several different hockey sticks of growth. It's messy. I'm not always proud of the results or the product choices we are forced into. But none of it feels like the Heroku/Salesforce debacle. Occam's razor applies here: it's not "more AI coding" and it's not "big bad Microsoft." It's scale, and a fundamental shift of the ground under all of our feet.
I hope we do the things that will make you want to come back. I hope we spark that joy in you again! It's not stupid to have big feelings about something that is so central to our lives as developers. Fuck that noise.
The amount of impact I've seen to businesses around the US at least might as well be akin to a Covid shutdown, and that certainly has me thinking about what the overall impacts are on the US economy overall.
It's a product that is _de facto_ present in nearly all developer scenarios. There are scenarios where I personally believe public management is better than private management, e.g. single-payer healthcare is strictly better than the bullshit we have in the US now. It's fundamentally cheaper for the polity when the government negotiates with healthcare providers than each private insurer.
I don't think that's fundamentally the problem facing GitHub, and I don't think it would be better in any way — for anyone — if it were regulated like a utility. But again, I write javascript for a living. Take what I'm saying with a big-ass rock of salt.
Speaking of git adjacent services. Why did google code end? Was it too hard for them to monetize? I tend to have an aversion for signing up for stuff so have never had an account on either, but they had a lot of momentum. And them shutting down that service feels like the inflection point marking the end of the "don't be evil" period, A lot of open source projects got burned in that one. That or when they bought YouTube instead of developing their own google video further.
My guess is that abuse (people hosting files/data that google didn't/wasn't allowed to host) made it untenable for a service that wasn't generating revenue and had limited headcount.
Something like Google drive or yt could spend a lot more energy stomping it rather than the handful of folks from the open source programs team.
My ID is just over 10,000. Crazy to think of the journey that I've had in computing since I signed up for GitHub.
Created at 2010-10-27T23:42:22Z. 16 years! What a wild ride. I used to use bitbucket a ton back then. I loved it.
Will redirect to an image file whose title is your user ID! :D
TBH I'm not super invested in github. I pay for it (smallest plan) and use it as a repository and for forking other projects occasionally, and for hosting some small-time static sites. I've never really needed any of it's other features. Every time I go to github.com there's more and more cruft though, which to me means that I'm not their target customer and they will inevitably either alienate me or jack up their prices. Happens every time there's an acquisition so I'm kind of used to it now.
Github has remained surprisingly useful for quite a while post M$ purchase, but I'm old enough to know that everything M$ touches eventually goes to crap. It's like a law.
I remember using CVS and Subversion though, with very limited hosted options, and I thought Github was the bees knees at the time.
I, too, wish Slashdot was worth visiting again. I spent so, so many years there, enjoying the hell out of it since it was Chips&Dips ...
ID: 67,498 Created: 2009-03-26
17 years, a month and two days ago.
When I was working at Microsoft I got transferred over to GitHub for awhile and someone there noticed my ID and made a big deal out of me having a 4-digit ID. :)
I never thought about it before then.
I had just tried asking Gemini to help me get there, and it kept telling me to read line 2 of github.com, as if they were serving JSON on their homepage. :facepalm:
I think that was down to being in a particular IRC channel when CW & co. were building it.
Yehuda Katz was the first external user of GitHub after the cofounders, so his github user id is `4`.
The way Rails works, if you want to look up a user record, you do it by id:
author = comment.author
user = User.find(author.id)
No idea how my two character handle made it through… Probably the wrong thread to ask anyone at GH to allow me to block notifications anytime anyone mentions "@ts" but I've come to accept it at this point, lol.
I had no idea that I joined so early. It says I joined in 20/2/2008. I guess I was following some of the founders' work in Rails when GitHub was announced and must have signed up shortly after it got started.
It's interesting that internally you had a very different experience with Salesforce buying Heroku and Microsoft buying Github. From the outside it appears to be analagous (except github is degrading quicker than Heroku did?)
It's safe to say that I'm hypersensitive to these antipatterns and have been looking out for them at GitHub, and I don't see them.
What Microsoft wants GitHub to be is pretty much what GitHub wants GitHub to be. A home for all developers, playing a central role in the production of both public and private software. That alignment was never there with Heroku/Salesforce.
GitHub is not perfect but I don't think it's "degraded faster" at all. It's _grown_ faster. Much much much faster. And it's had to expand into the AI field, which is not an incremental thing like "hey let's launch a new feature or better dashboards." Nobody knows what AI wants to be when it grows up. GitHub in 2026 fundamentally resembles a pre-PMF startup in many ways because of that. I'm obviously not an unbiased observer, but I wouldn't count us out just because it's an uphill. Everyone's on that same uphill.
Having experienced both firsthand, I fundamentally disagree that there's a parallel. GitHub/MSFT has the median amount of corporate bullshit. Not more, not less.
Maybe a hot take: no, it didn't.
I think it had all the pieces (api,cli,etc.) already that it would've still be very useful in an AI world without deeply integrating AI things (copilot, etc.). I'd take higher availability over AI features any day.
It’s grown in a way that degraded it and that required actual effort. For example:
- The fancy new diff viewer frontend that barely works. Someone wrote that code — it didn’t happen by itself.
- The unbelievably buggy and slow code review frontend (which is surely related to the diff frontend) was added complexity that did not need to happen. Its badness has nothing to do with how many users use it. It’s just bad in a no-scaling-involved way.
- GitHub actions. It’s … bad. I suppose there wasn’t a predecessor that was better.
> And it's had to expand into the AI field, which is not an incremental thing like "hey let's launch a new feature or better dashboards."
No, it did not have to expand into the AI field. A competent AI-free GitHub Core that could have an optional AI layer on top would have worked just fine if not dramatically better than the current mess.
(I say this as a paying user who will probably cancel soon. The Copilot reviews are kind of nice, but they’re not any better than a third-party system, and I’m getting sick of GitHub not working. Plus, the repos I’ve already migrated off of GitHub get to have nice non-AI things like gasp service accounts.)
There might not have been a predecessor, but it's been obvious for at least a decade that GHA are a very poorly designed programming language, yet nothing was done to improve. They introduced Github Apps that solve many of the issues with Actions, but that requires deploying a service and aren't anywhere near the ease of use of Actions.
Im an outsider and a layman, so this might be totally off base, but...
The way I hear people talking about github reliability doesnt sound like scaling problems to me. If you drive 20 miles every day but then decide to drive 2000 miles and run out of gas, thats a problem of scale. If you drive 2000 miles and your engine explodes, thats a problem of design.
Maybe their design problems are being made evident because of sudden scale, but they're still design problems.
Car analogies are typical, so I'll add in there.
My car can take the four of us, and we can load it up with things from the shops. I can put a bunch of heavy tins of food in there, or some DIY things, but if I put several tons of stones in the boot it'll totally fuck it up.
Is that a design problem?
Not really, it's a relatively cheap regular car, and it failed at a certain scale.
It would be a design problem if it were a flatbed truck, despite it being the same scaling that showed the problem.
Making my car resilient enough to take that weight would require tradeoffs that would either make it worse for other jobs I want it to do or at least add significantly to the cost.
This is similar in engineering software systems too, you can make it handle scaling up better, but this can require a much more complex architecture that may make it slower at smaller scales. It can make it more complicated to work with, add additional risks of failure as well.
[0] Which has been ongoing for hours but hadn’t started when I wrote my comment. https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/x69zbgdyfzg0
Yes, and what Github wants public github.com to be is free QA for Github Enterprise. My company is a paying customer with 200 engineers and it's pretty clear we're just Guinea pigs for the Enterprise product.
Isn't this the massive problem? You're trying to do everything, and you can't, and you're trying to do it for everyone all at once, and have tied it all together so much that scaling up gets worse. If it's more than twice as hard to cope with twice the use, then you have to charge a bunch more to customers as you grow - and that's for your customers to get no actual benefit.
> GitHub is not perfect but I don't think it's "degraded faster" at all. It's _grown_ faster.
The experience has degraded. It's really, really bad. I've seen companies spending thousands and thousands of dollars weekly in developer time *hitting rerun on broken actions*. It's so expensive to start with then so expensive in how awful it is to use.
Something I really don't get I guess is what out of all of this actually needs to be cross-project. How much of my github use needs access to something that isn't running on the same machine? I worked with a team building things actively, maybe 20 devs? That's not really a large set of users. Let's say 10 devs with the workload of 20, the cheapest plan would be $40/mo, enterprise would be ~$200. Would ten heavy users really max out a 64GB ram, 6+8 core new i5 with dual nvme drives, a gigabit connection and unlimited traffic? That's about $40 at hetzner for a box.
I'm not arguing a big federated position, I just don't really get why some of these enormous companies need to be so centralised. It feels like the problem is trying to be a big interlinked thing, and failing at it. The only things I can think of are
1. Links between issues
2. Accounts
3. Search
The first is mostly solved with literally just links, accounts isn't a huge problem and search is fair enough - but search is utterly awful and I cannot find things within one single repo or organisation reliably. So global stuff is irrelevant.
> And it's had to expand into the AI field, which is not an incremental thing like "hey let's launch a new feature or better dashboards." Nobody knows what AI wants to be when it grows up
If github persists in being utterly shit for developers, it won't be around to find out. I'm not sure at all what part of the AI stuff needs to make everything else bad, and I'm extremely bullish on AI and agentic coding.
To really hammer this last point home, as agentic coding means we can do a lot more and faster - the unreliability of github has become much more apparent and impactful. Unreliable tests, unreliable code pulling and pushing, unreliable diffs. You're making the agents jobs harder, making the devs jobs harder exactly in the place they now spend much more time.
It makes github dramatically more expensive as a place to work. Also just really fucking annoying.
I think the general answer is that it would take real development effort to make federation work, and having to have compatibilty with other installations slows down your own pace of possible features -- I think these things are undeniable. Arguably worth it for society/the community (I wish we had more open standard federation and less centralization), but from the point of view of the company will it actually lead to increased profits sufficient to justify? In fact, it may do the opposite, if you are one of the largest, then lock-in is better for your profitability. Compatibility with other services is only important for the small upstarts trying to get customers from the largest.
I don't like it, but I think we will get proprietary centralization as long as we have capitalism of the sort we have.
Imagine each organisation/user was run with completely isolated data, and you used something like google sign in for auth (so one global sign in, then oauth).
What wouldn't work? Global search, that I get. I struggle to think of other things though. Maybe whether links between issues across orgs updates? Every commit, diff, code browser, permissions for writing, reading, org level search, stars, would work with zero federated sort of search-y things. Package management, issue tracking, all that would be the same.
Forks followed by PRs? Not sure that would be much different - maybe you'd have to raise an issue on the original project with a link to your new repo & branch.
Some of my attraction to github is just that I am used to and like the UI, and I get annoyed on another platform where I don't understand the UI and don't know where to find things or how to do things (like set up free CI for open source project, or debug existing CI for a PR).
Other than that... auto-linking to issues, prs, and code (with auto-expansion of excerpt in issue) cross-project is nice?
But you are right, git is theoretically something where separate projects are fairly isolated, which does make it more mysterious that competitors are having trouble and it seems like github has some kind of network effect lock-in anyway. It's a good question.
This pops up on here frequently. People misremember the Heroku timeline with Salesforce. Most of Heroku's growth and glory days happened after the acquisition. Salesforce actively invested in it and turned it into the powerhouse that people remember today.
At some point, they stopped, and it's not clear why.
People flip the order of the first two and remember it as "Salesforce acquired Heroku and then they went on a downward spiral" but that's not really what happened. There were many years of growth in between, including the period that almost everyone who remembers Heroku fondly remember it for.
But yes, heroku from the outside kept doing quite well for the first years of Salesforce ownership, whether becuase they let them alone and kept their budget going, or whatever. That's why I suggested that from the outside github's slide was much faster.
idan (who again, tells us they worked at heroku) replied to me in this thread:
> Salesforce never understood Heroku. Salesforce's understanding of Heroku, if such an understanding ever existed, was wildly different than what Heroku understood it wanted to be. Benioff's penchant for buying himself a company every year did not help — "no headcount this year, we're buying Mulesoft/Quip/Tableau/Slack/$WHATEVER. And oops we spent too much money on dreamforce. Sucks that your pager rotations are burning people out!" It was very clear they did not give a shit about us, as evidenced by resources.
> It's safe to say that I'm hypersensitive to these antipatterns and have been looking out for them at GitHub, and I don't see them.
At the point we're quoting other people's replies in other parts of the thread becuase we're not all even having the same conversation anymore, we're probably done!
Excellent example of why centralization is a bad thing. A Git “hub” is not a thing that should have ever existed for a self-described “distributed” version control system.
Nothing prevents usage of GH in a decentralized fashion. There's nothing magical about git remotes. Just add some more, figure out a process that works for you, have fun!
In reality: when I want to send a letter I don't want to figure out a process from scratch. I want to go to the local post office, buy a stamp, and post a letter.
Convenience is a spectrum and different people land in different spots. What irks me is when I lack the choice. And that's not the case here.
Do you mean Git, not Github? Because Github is centralized by definition, “using it in a decentralized fashion” doesn’t make sense.
So crazy to see how money can ruin such a good thing.
“I won’t leave, I’ll fight to make this place better!” is a laudable trope ofc, but in this case you’re not making any place better, you’re just defending shareholder value. IMHO :)
This is true but misleading. Unfortunately.
It is a true statement for developers working in GitHub at Microsoft. It's not a true statement for users.
There is no avenue by which you make GitHub better by continuing to use it as it has been.
That's the job of GitHub's product and engineering teams, not the users.
The attitude of "stay to support the product" can prevent a better replacement. When Digg torpedoed themselves back in 2012 or whenever, that exodus was a big part of Reddit growing from niche to dominant.
I suppose us "normals" can push by making it easy to replace GitHub with something else, so that they start risking losing it all.
Ghostty and others leaving might be the only way that active users could actively and visibly signal a need for change.
In the same way that Mastodon didn't replace Twitter even when Twitter went to shit, I don't believe in the various GitHub alternatives becoming a broadly-used thing. Maybe we'll end up with more GitHub-alikes like Codeberg, mabye we'll end up with some communities adopting novel forges like Tangled and Forgejo. But it beggars belief that most of the millions of GitHub's users would switch to something so much more complicated. Has the same energy as "20XX is finally the year of linux on the desktop".
My very personal hot take: the likeliest happy future is _most likely_ to happen through improving GitHub. I vote with my feet to do that from inside, and that's all I wanted to add. Hence "I hope we do the things that make you want to come back one day." I believe in it enough that I choose to work here on exactly that, because like Mitchell, I care very much about the platonic ideal of GitHub. He's ready to move on, and I'm not yet. There's no value judgment hiding inside that.
I can see the same happening for GitHub, in fact it seems to be actively trying to move in that direction: a platform for AI agents to host code, to review code, with little to no human activity.
Just like everyone who didn’t want to deal with bots left twitter, they will soon leave GitHub for similar reasons. I’m sure there is a future for GitHub as the code hosting platform for agents but it should be no surprise then when real people like Mitchell and the rest of us jump ship.
To be clear- from a user perspective, "improving GitHub" means "restoring reliability to what it was 6 years ago". There's no killer feature that makes people stop leaving, if my PRs don't lead every third day and actions never work.
Uptime: 4 9s minimum for paying customers for the core service (not necessarily the social features, but pull requests have to work).
I never worked on any SaaS that had such high uptime. It seems pretty good to me. In 10 years, it was always better than 99.5% uptime. That seems impressive to me for a huge, complex SaaS like GitHub.
This graph is literally designed to abuse correlation =/= causation by attaching the arbitrary label "microsoft acquires github" so that the reader will apply causation to the uptime.
Now let's overlay ontop of the uptime graph a few lines of: # of monthly active users, # of monthly commits, size of PRs, action minutes per PR (whatever demonstrates scaling)
Something tells me that the uptime issues follow scale more than they do ownership... but that's not the narrative that this chart was designed for...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14452011
https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/31/github-goes-down-and-takes...
Other than that it's fine, I guess.
It’s their right, certainly, but it means I use GitHub as a Google Site replacement and my only active repo is archived whenever I’m not pushing commits to silence all the unwanted crap that comes with a GitHub repo. I’d be daft to ignore free hosting and I don’t care in the slightest that it’s one nines. Makes me laugh every time, though, to think of all those billion dollar AI-layoffs businesses having to stop AI work for a day because AI proliferation broke the freemium model and GitHub’s too hooked on being home to unfunded, mission-critical infrastructure projects to close the barn doors on free.
Autofill frequently doesn’t work. Passkeys are unreliable. Creating a new password doesn’t ever get saved.
- They ditched their previous android app for a new one that doesn't get the grandfathered accessibility access so autofill is mostly useless...
- On mac, safari integration is consistently flaky. It regularly keeps getting blocked in a loop telling me to unlock 1password when 1password has already been unlocked.
- Passkeys are unreliable to the point of being unusable
- Autofill frequently doesn't work well where for some reason the site with the same url as saved in 1password is not offered during autofill. When 1password used to work, it helped catch phishing attempts because it wouldn't show autofill on pages that do not match. Nowadays because of the shitty autofill, people get trained to go to the app, copy the password and paste it in the website. This means that it will no longer protect from phishing attempts
- The previous behaviour of saving any newly generated password as a password object (not login) was much better. Now newly generated passwords are only available in the password history of the browser extension you specifically used.
- I can't tell 1password to ignore a specific website
At this point, the only reason I'm not using bitwarden is that search is very slow on it with 2k+ passwords.
They would say you can do that. Right click and choose "hide on this page" from the 1P menu.
But does it work?
No. It does not fucking work, because this company and their software is FUCKING SHIT.
On the Mac app, the setting is at the bottom of the General settings screen.
The downside to forgoing the browser extensions is that creating new logins is painfully manual. The risks of using the extensions just freak me out too much.
[1]: https://support.1password.com/mac-universal-autofill/
[2]: https://hudlow.org/2026/practical-antiforgery#two-steps-forw...
[3]: https://hudlow.org/2026/practical-antiforgery/demo/1password
- autofill on desktop is rock-solid, it virtually never fails, much less so than any other password manager autofill
- it works great with passkeys, again rock-solid, and again the best UX of any password manager. passkeys itself are also great
- OTP code integration (only use this for non-important stuff) works great too, again best-in-class
- switch to Electron was great for most, the Windows app sucked and there was nothing on Linux, now we have a good application across all 3 desktop platforms, although it was a slight downgrade for Mac users
- autofill works fine on Android 99% of the time
- 1Password CLI and SSH agent are interesting additions but SSH has a lot of paper cuts
In general, they have by far the nicest UX and UI of all password managers. And they really seem to care. They were the first to introduce stuff like "no automatic autofill" because of security implications, their vault spec is open source (in case they go belly up), they get audited regularly. They were the first to add passkeys and actually made a site (name escapes me) that shows which services have passkeys and how to activate them.
We've just been moving into a world where metric hacking is the desired outcome, not an outcome to try to avoid. These companies are only surviving because of their monopoly statuses. Because of momentum. It's a powerful force. It's the reason Twitter still is around. The reason Facebook is still around. But them being around doesn't mean they're good. It doesn't mean they're useful. It doesn't mean it is a good product. It doesn't mean the users like it. It just means people are used to the way things are and they aren't angry enough to leave for something else. But these companies are actively creating friction for users, daring them to leave, gouging them for everything they can. FFS Microsoft is the largest contributor (even more than Valve) to creating "the year of linux". Sure, it'll never have M$FT's market share, but it sure is eating into their revenue.
We've all lost sight of what made software so powerful in the first place. Why it became so successful and changed the world. We used to ship good products that help people, make their lives better, and make lots of money in the process. Now, I think all that anyone cares about is the last part. Now we're actively being hostile to those that make the systems better. And that system is fucked up and will destroy itself. That's not a good thing, because it does a lot of damage along the way. It is a system of extreme myopia.
In the last 5 years I'd argue that most software has made my life harder and more complex, not easier. There are definitely exceptions to this (ghostty being a great example), but there is a strong trend. I know I'm not alone in this feeling and I think we're getting to a point where a lot of people are no longer willing to dismiss their own gripes. This is not a good sign...
I'm glad you're optimistic. I do hope things can change. And my frustration is not directed at you. I really do want you to be right and I really do want to see change come from the inside. But I do not think those leading the companies now have any foresight. To be honest, I'm not even sure there's anyone at the wheel. It feels like we've just let the market forces steer the ship. If the currents steer the ship, then there's no captain, regardless of who claims the title. Frankly, I don't want to be on a ship without a captain, but here we are.
This is funny, because 2025-on seems to be starting some couple years of Linux on the desktop/laptop. Valve introduced millions of people to gaming on Linux, bazzite is exploding in popularity, and that popularity is pouring into other projects like Omarchy, Mint, Ubuntu.
GitHub maybe will end up like Twitter - where the people who are there are there because they have to be, while the people actually enjoying their time online are on different platforms.
Took a year till everyone was using a Mac.
Then I joined some mega-corp, with it's structures and set systems, so opted for a Macbook.
Worst mistake of my life, OSX is horrid, I'd rather use Windows.
edit: 13 years ago
Pairs well with Stay to make windows automatically return to their assigned layout when plugging/unplugging my external display: https://cordlessdog.com/stay/
FYI I had a top class developer working for me about 5 years ago, who saw me using WSL and VScode... they had a Windows machine and several macs due to the nature if their work. A week later they were on Windows every day, only using apple for apple builds.
The answer is, we don't all do the same kind of work. There is a reason so many engineers working in your field use mac. Guessing you are a Web developer?
I know a lot of engineers. Some daily osx, some daily Linux. I'm not seeing any particular correlation in knowledge or skill - except perhaps slightly in the osx people's disfavor.
I've moved my projects over to my own personal Forgejo (when I don't care about collaborating on them) and Codeberg (when I do). I find that ecosystem vastly simpler in the common ways that matter. For instance, viewing large diffs and syntax highlighted files is unbelievably faster, about as fast as GitHub's use to be before it was "improved".
For every way I use those forges as a solo or small-group contributor, the alternatives are as good as or better than GitHub today. Some product manager could become a company legend by figuring out how and why that is, then getting someone to do something about it.
If GitHub’s internal thinking were “well at least we’re easier than Codeberg”, then they may find that the moat isn’t nearly so deep as they might hope.
Same may happen to GitHub. CI/CD tools and workflows can become more portable and adaptable. Independent code review tools that can use GitHub API along with a few other APIs may become popular. GitHub will become one of, not the one. I won't call it a bad outcome.
I use Digital Ocean and couldn't be happier. The bill is small, and it's refreshingly simple to host a container.
I still have battle scars from trying to set up AWS Fargate. It's just a hodge podge of corporately requested features at this point.
None of the alternatives you cited are as complicated as GitHub. Also, GitHub started with this Actions bullshit which is just reinventing the CI wheel and overcomplicating stuff that was already made simple. The one thing I hate Forgejo about is for being compatible with Actions and promoting is as the way to go for CI, when you have much better alternatives like Woodpecker, where you can actually understand the underlying code for your CI/CD pipelines.
Once or twice someone internal to GitHub got interested... and then drifted away again. Years later the broken behaviour remains. And I'm a lot more cynical about thinking GitHub fundamentals might ever get any better.
I feel like in a very mundane sense, I pay GitHub for a service, and they use that money to pay developers, to then make GitHub better.
It's tough to be working somewhere when usage is booming, and your service is crashing all the time. It's also tough to migrate your infrastructure between platforms, which it sounds like GitHub finally has to do in order to scale to the next level, to really take advantage of being part of Microsoft, although that has to feel pretty frustrating in the short term.
So hang in there GitHub team. Just keep fixing things.
> My version of your post reads differently:
> "GitHub only gets better if people who give a shit stick around to make it better"
> Walking away would be easy.
Especially with corporate owned software or SaaS ecosystems!
Sounds like you made the right choice with Heroku back in the day. I feel like this is Github's Heroku moment.
the thing about github that is so maddening is linus gave us the secret with git itself. then we reinvented centralized source control using git and called it github, and here we are.
For *most* users, fully distributed and disconnected is a bug not a feature.
I completely understand a "people who give a shit stick around" mentality if you work there, but you can't expect users who run a business on it to stick around if it's broken.
I'm not encouraging Mitchell to stay, I'm saying that my version of his post is about _me_ staying to make a brighter future, and adding my context on why I still believe that.
And finally I closed with "I hope we win you back" to be extra clear about it!
And then you claim your version is only about you. Why post it as a reply, if that’s true? It would be off topic. But it isn’t off topic; because actually you are talking about OP in addition to yourself.
Don't feel too bad, you are both essential to the process that ends in Github improving (or imploding).
I would invest your energy in something worthwhile like an open source project, a non-profit, a social or political cause, a family memeber, etc.
> Occam's razor applies here
I think the simpler explanation is clearly that it's a for-profit company and these problems aren't worth fixing, and not a speculative engineering excuse. If Microsoft wanted to invest more, including in uptime, they could make it happen. They have over a trillion dollars.
At a basic level I appreciate this sentiment. However, the common dysfunction I see in large corporation is its not the lack of people who give a shit. Its lacking a sufficient number of people in positions of power that give a shit -- such that they can actually make change happen.
All too often competing pressures (features, profit, delivery speed, politics) take precedence; not leaving time for things that would really move the needle. In essence, too many leaders are happy to ship garbage; they don't care (or don't know).
If Github were to put out a statement saying "service quality is our priority", it is fairly meaningless. If they added "here's how we'll get there", maybe it helps some. Moreso -- "from now on executive compensation is tied to these SLOs", then maybe something would actually happen.
The company leaders only care about features shipped. That's it. They only polish those features if they are shipped in such a broken fashion that they are actively causing outrage. Once the features are shipped, it's done, any additional resources on an already shipped feature is seen as wasted.
This permeates all aspects of modern corporate software, unfortunately. It's why the likes of C# and .Net is forever adding new frameworks and language features while abandoning the existing frameworks. It's why Microsoft has had more new UX frameworks than OS releases. It's why for the same setting Microsoft now has multiple panels for the same information, literally a panel introduce in windows 98, Vista, 10, 11.
The only time a company like MS kills a product is when that product competes in the same space as an existing product. For example, it's why they killed wordpad. It was offering features too close to what Word did for free.
The fact is, it costs almost nothing to add a feature. It costs a ton of money and resources to properly integrate, use, polish, and remove places that feature fits into. I can't imagine the amount of money MS paid to integrate copilot into everything.
What's the mechanism of action here? What changes if I stay? What changes if I give more or less of a shit? Is there javascript telemetry feeding my shit into a dashboard with a calibrated shitometer for executives to consult when they set quarterly objectives? My account is six weeks younger than mitchellh's and I've been watching GitHub fall apart for the last year, what will happen because I stick around to watch for another year? Besides that I will get covered in shit.
You're an employee. What changes if you stick around? Back in October 2025, the GitHub CTO Federov prioritized moving to Azure above feature work (https://thenewstack.io/github-will-prioritize-migrating-to-a...). Yesterday he recommitted to it (https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/an-update-on-...), writing "We started executing our plan to increase GitHub’s capacity by 10X in October 2025 with a goal of substantially improving reliability and failover." GitHub has had six bad months of increasing bugs and sharply decreased uptime, and the CTO just recommitted to staying the course. You've explicitly been directed to move to Azure, not to give a shit or to make things better.
So I'll defer to your direct expertise. From the outside, Heroku stalled and died because Salesforce prioritized everything else in its business above Heroku. Are GitHub's priorities so different? Does you giving a shit make Azure and Copilot the best top priorities for GitHub? Will Azure and Copilot be why I stop seeing SPA jank? Will Azure and Copilot be why I can see my list of open PRs? Will Azure and Copilot be why I see something more than the 500 unicorn? Will Azure and Copilot stop the spam PRs that want to undermine the quality of my code? Will Azure and Copilot lead to anything other than the same corporate dismissal and dysfunction that led to Heroku? Will you giving a shit matter?
I am using fossil now. I kind of love it, just a sqlite file with a very trim binary to interact with it. I get all of my things that I want (wiki, forum, issues, docs, etc) all in one file.
But that's just for fun. At work we are still tied to Microsoft Github. Just typing that out feels dirty.
It is a megacorp that is mainly in this situation because of its relentless pursuit of exponential growth for the benefit of a very select few to the detriment of everyone else (including GitHub employees such as yourself). The hockey sticks are there, but how they've reacted to them - which is what has lead to this situation - is entirely because of the above. If not for that, it could've reacted to them differently.
It does not deserve to get better.
It would be very good for society if GitHub's market share massively declined, if everyone moved away. It wouldn't be good for you personally, but it would be good for everyone else. There is nothing positive about a single company having access to everyone's code.
Just look at all the tricks you've been playing, automatically opting everyone in to having their code used for LLM training. [0]
GitHub shouldn't get better. It should decline in popularity.
You know full well that it is undeniable that your competitors gaining market share would be good for everyone as a whole, but comp juicy and emotional attachment to people there and the pre-acquisition times where it used to be a great company (those times are not coming back) and your past with them etc.
[0] https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/26/github_ai_training_po...
Like Mitchell, GitHub was once a dream job for me, and it just never lined up pre-acquisition. I shared many of Mitchell's habits too, about GitHub being my reading material. Until some time after passing 2000 starred repos, I had literally read every line of code in each of them. GitHub still feels like home to me, as a user.
Good luck, and we're all counting on you.
(359439, which is quite high for this thread, it seems!)
This is like crying that your favourite IRC network goes, then you just jump onto OFTC
It's like crying when your favorite IRC network gets acquired by a crazy person (eg. Freenode) and refusing to jump onto libera.chat. I get network effects make a scene, but still, come on, new Freenode is not Freenode, it's just a name. Time to move on!
> Microsoft doesn't care about you
> why do you care about Microsoft?
You answered your own question there, mate.
This only works in democratic settings. In capitalist corporations, typical liberalist parliamentarism and so on it does not work, only coercion does, which might be peaceful, like a strike or boycott, or it might not be.
Besides "That's what makes us money and pays my bills", there is no real reason to keep building github as this centralized, all-encompassing system that needs to work at global scale.
Engineering is about understanding that everything is about trade-offs, and eerything keeps pointing out to the fact that wrong choices are being made there. You can throw as many people as you want or all the MS money at it, but as long as Github "engineers" that keeps overindexing on Efficiency at the cost of Resiliency, it will feel like this pile of unusable crap
Personally, I find "loyalty" perhaps the most fascinating one of those, being "irrational" for the individual almost by definition but sometimes, for example, proving out to be the only "glue" holding an organization together through a period of incurable-looking decline followed by an eventual recovery (in the lucky cases).
Before Microsoft came along, the entire company was aligned from the bottom to the top around the goal of delivering a single great product. As soon as they bought us, that changed; there were now lots of ways for an individual to succeed at GitHub-the-division-of-Microsoft that had nothing to do with GitHub-the-product. Now GitHub doesn't even have its own top, the org chart just smears into the Microsoft one at some hazy point. Perverse incentives abound.
An organization like Microsoft can never recreate the magic that was GitHub. There's just too many competing interests and agendas that have absolutely noting to do with making GitHub better. In the time before I left, I actually encountered many people who didn't care if they were making it worse, if it advanced their other goals.
Now with the fear of constant layoffs at Microsoft and Meta too, it's even more critical for individual engineers to optimize their performance review or you might lose your job. Sadly this is hard to line up with putting out a good product.
If you optimize for performance reviews, you'll make a lot of money, yeah. But you'll eventually find yourself overemployed and incapable of keeping up with that gambit anymore. Or, you'll find yourself doing something you never wanted to do. In extreme cases, it's like those people at Palantir in that post last week, realizing they're the bad guys. Usually it's just looking at your calendar on Monday evening, seeing a wall of meetings from 4PM to 9PM, and telling your kid you can't go to the park today.
Meanwhile, the "product people" I know well are all doing really cool stuff during the day, then going home to enjoy their lives. They don't make as much money, but they're happy.
Quote that one Wu-Tang song today, and you'll be quoting that one Talking Heads song in a couple years. I guess.
and probably Once In A Lifetime
Those "overemployed" people are your bosses, indeed unable to keep up, steering you into the situation of "those people at Palantir".
When things spiral downward, telling yourself how you're "relatively fine still" with blinders on short-term, "works" just up to hitting solid ground.
I've worked in big tech and had the sort of conversations with my managers where they say: "The work you're doing in X is great. I use it and it really needs work. But it's not a priority, or even 'impactful'. Your work on X is effectively equivalent to doing no work".
Sometimes it isn't even about getting a promotion, sometimes the implication is you should be worried about keeping your job. You can still do X which everyone knows is great and someone should do, but "on your spare time, as an extra" because Y is what your performance review will really revolve around.
The sad part is I can tell they mean it, and do agree someone needs to work on X, but it isn't their decision to make, because they have to show face and explain to their manager why an engineer earning XXX,XXX didn't meaningfully work on Y. Ultimately someone up the chain who you've never talked to is the person who decided X is unimportant; they don't want to kill it they just don't use it, or have a strategic reason to not care about it.
In the politics of upper management perhaps it was something an adversary used to vouch for, and now you have to prove the org can do without it. Or perhaps it's the ace in your pocket, and you wan't it to be lack-luster so when the big boss above you starts talking about retirement, you can show amazing wins in the area and be first in line for succession. Companies are not democracies. For better or for worse big companies are not democracies, they are feuds, so if the kingdom isn't in danger its future comes to depend a lot not on what's the best decision, but how a decision fits the game of thrones.
Microsoft is literally too big to fail and it's their sole asset at this point. When companies like Github get bought by Microsoft, I just put a clock on the wall in my mind. Just a matter of time before the shit seeps in.
They can't help it. They are organizationally unable to function. It's so much worse than misaligned incentives and redundant management (though those are factors): they seem culturally, institutionally, unable to just... DO ANYTHING. Everything they do is 1 step forward and 4-20 steps back. They are too big and they should be broken up for their own good as well as the good of every user of their software.
Its just unbelievably hard to nail the culture and incentives in large organizations. Some notable exceptions: Sony in its first 3 decades, Toyota in the 70-90s era, Apple after the return of Jobs and till his death, and one could even argue Microsoft in the era of Windows 95 till about Xbox 1. Maybe even Tesla and SpaceX.
Something hard to quantify happens when the culture of product erodes and the culture of politics virally infects a company. I witnessed it at a couple of big companies ... Intel in the late 90s, Google in the 2010-15 era (working as a contractor looking in).
Hats off to people like Jobs and Musk who could grow product culture at scale ... I can't even say I've been successful at fostering this kind of culture in startups under 500 employees.
At best that's half of the equation. You also have to continually hire new people who give a shit, and you have to do that within the context of Microsoft.
Given the rot already evident, there really isn't any incentive for people who care to join. They would have to care more than the organization does about the product, and there would have to be many of them.
Once product in large companies get to this point, there's no real way back. Quality will max out at the minimum required to retain the revenue. And if that fails for too long, it'll be put in product hospice.
Even when we had a CEO telling people to focus on making GitHub Fast (<3), telling people to do what made GitHub better and not what people thought would make Microsoft better or make their jobs more secure to MS (because Microsoft bought GitHub because GitHub was the important thing, not so it could be a consumer of Azure) - it was still an uphill fight to change mindset and it didn't go anywhere meaningful.
I really hoped that others would be enable to enact that change after I left, but everything coming out of GitHub makes it look like the core focus is still not on making it fast or reliable or just better overall for people. If a blog post about GitHub's availability still includes the world's third-best major cloud provider as name drop on a solution, people are not focusing on making GitHub better. They are focusing on being part of Microsoft. Make GitHub better first, buy more super fast computers with the fastest everything you can buy, or at least use the best or second best public cloud provider, then work out how to leverage Microsoft to do it in-house or cheaply later. A GitHub that nobody wants to use is a bad investment for Microsoft.
Also, rip out 90% of default feature bloat integrations from initial page loads, add them as discoverable drill-downs or optional things to enable if people need it. Adding every feature under the sun (and copilot) on every place you can think of might read nice, but if you then fail people's most basic needs, you're worse off. GitHub still needs to function as the basic tool for all the future stuff to work. Accept the agentic coding paradigm shift and focus on making the tools faster for the hot paths rather than every path - and yes, that means removing stuff from the hot paths. GitHub today is like a maze, layers of settings and features, like nobody is thinking through UX anymore. This seems unrelated to performance, but this sort of "throw everything at the screen" style of UX is also what leads the backing systems to crumble under load.
No. It only gets better if people who stick around give a shit - not the other way around.
The spool of wire became a prominent metaphor on the app, representing something that might seem meaningless to others, but holds sentimental and nostalgic value to its owner.
Nobody should be in an emotional turmoil because they can't do a PR in a 2h window during a day.
We should all learn to take things more slowly, because our current accelerationist society is detroying the planet, and is destroying social ties.
Because, if you get that emotional from on a non-functioning tool... wait until you discover how our non-functioning democracies allowed for a genocide to happen in Gaza, for people in the south to be doing slave-work for our AIs to satifsy people in the north, etc
This is more than a SaaS, for you and the others. Stating kind of the obvious: without it Vagrant, Terraform and heck, even Hashicorp would have not been the same - or probably even existed. Despite probably being a later user of GitHub I share the same feelings. It's so sad to see GitHub, a product and company I once respected a lot, getting trashed by Microsoft and all of these outages.
Same :( their 9 5's is embarassing
I’m a big fan of ghostty and also unenamoured with the current state of GitHub and Microsoft.
That is to say I believe this is an opportunity to disrupt the incumbent player and I’m game. HMU if you feel similar and want to discuss.
> I'm sure folks will make fun of me for this. It is a stupid thing.
Brother, it is not a stupid thing. We need more in the world of what you are doing here. Never change on this count.
Or do you have a better idea of what the plan exactly is?
No, it won't bypass P≠NP either.
We have all been deeply involved, constructed careers and sharpened our tools with technology and hopefully for the benefit of technology. I can only imagine how deeply sad the current state of software is for those talented individuals that helped to carry it to here.
Some of us can at least hide it with cynicism because there is not much at stake, but emotional honesty is very much appreciated.
I was talking about the same thing just yesterday. GitHub with its friendly mascot is no longer. It's now just another SaaS platform that everyone including my non technical colleagues are using. Their push towards everything-AI is the exact opposite of what they stood for in the begining. A community of like minded people who wanted to build great tools and loved software. But yet no longer. GitHub now feels like a soulless SaaS that's trying to hook my onto an enterprise subscription and bring my whole team along so we can all do some agentic coding or whatever.
"Tech Talk: Linus Torvalds on git" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8
"I'm not going to force you to switch over to decentralized, I'm just going to call you ugly and stupid. That's the deal."
I do feel kind of sadness right now it is a zombie that current owners are just pumping out whatever is left out of it.
I don’t care about GH I felt centralized repositories like that is wrong.
Q/A was supposed to be centralized because we need people to find the questions and answers in a single place.
GH or others should be just referring to repositories not keep them… be a search engine for decentralized repositories.
We don't cry over things, we cry over what things mean.
I don't see anything wrong with grieving the loss of a community and environment that led to so many meaningful experiences for you.
Thank you for your hard work.
Unity taught me how to program and , along with JavaScript turned me from a college dropout to a software engineer.
Finished my degree later.
I still love Unity, but the company is stable. If I friend needs help with a Unity project, I'm down, but I start all my new games with Godot.
I'm not sad though. Unity is like a friend I'm still cool with, we just drifted apart.
But from a realistic point of view. Did we really think Unity and GitHub were charities in pursuit of the greater good.
Of course not. They cashed out, made money and whatever good they did along the way was a nice side effect.
That’s just to say that crying over GitHub is fine, you’re a human, we cry over all sorts of stuff. Emotions are weird and you should not feel badly for having them.
Thanks for Ghostty, been my daily driver for awhile now. Hope the rest of your day/week goes much better!
This is all to say I have tremendous respect for you. Which is why I say:
You also have the resources to fix this. You not only have the resources and skill Mitchell, to make it happen - You know everything that it takes to be the CEO of a Billion dollar unicorn - you have the connections, you have the vision.
More importantly, Mitchell, you care.
Make it happen. You have done it a few times before. Do it again.
Quote the opposite. We need to leave so they receive the message in order to fix it. As far as the suits know, life is swell. So much so they can't keep up with demand. Be sure to say why you are leaving too, so they know what to fix.
GitHub made working in the open a joy. It's very sad the state that it's in.
To be honest, I never understood the fascination with github. Its a hub, of git repos. Not to piss on your parade, because your complaints are valid, but maybe isnt github that as gone sour as much as you have grown out of it. This was your passion, now its over and you move on.
I think because GitHub has been such an important part of my life dating back to the very start of my career - just like you.
And it’s not just the technology, it’s the people. All the great projects there. The countless README’s I’ve dissected trying to setup something new. There’s people behind all of that and that always felt exceptionally meaningful to me.
It has been profoundly emotional to watch GitHub degrade over the past year. It’s almost like watching someone you love slip away. Which I have also done. It’s not the same, but there is something familiar in the pain.
Meanwhile streamers dunk on it in YouTube videos and on X and none of it is funny to me. It’s just tragic.
Now I’m choked up. Dammit all to hell.
We weren’t even in the same circles and this was my first good conference, but my own little company that I worked at was full of motivated hackers that were trying to wrap our heads around what you already understood.
You took my comments about on-boarding and documentation very humbly and you knew what I was really saying was: keep it up.
You sure did keep it up.
Those same team mates are here with me using TF at a different company years later, and we’re still pushing left.
Those colleagues just said “it’s art and science”
… and when the art gets ripped away from you, what you described is a natural reaction.
Still, keep it up.
It's been painful to use GitHub these days, user experience practically went down the toilet with ridiculous pains like CVEs [1][2], slow and ineffective and expensive GitHub Actions that doesn't allow local execution instead a "push & pray" workflow leading to repetitive "commit-push-wait" cycles to debug CI errors or bugs and then the absolutely horrendous Arkose Lab's Octocaptcha[3][4]. Note that only new users are encountering the Octocaptcha at account creation time, the amount of the time I wasted on solving these ridiculous visual or audio captchas are insane. I happened to need to create 3 separate accounts for the orgs that I am consulting for recently, each time it was at least 20-30 minutes to go through the account creation process. Sure it blocks some AI bots, but can't GitHub team create something that doesn't hinder the user experience?! Oh, if you have uBlock Origin or Privacy Guard on (which I did), it will take longer because each failed answer will set you back for another 5-10 mins of puzzle time!
Plus the reliability issues that Mitchell mentioned. Mona the Octocat jumped the shark in 2026. RIP.
[1] https://www.wiz.io/blog/github-rce-vulnerability-cve-2026-38... [2] https://thehackernews.com/2026/03/trivy-security-scanner-git... [3] https://octocaptcha.com [4] https://share.google/aimode/2KOowSozTuZJVhBLw
I jumped ship as soon as they added MFA. I vibe-coded my own raw Git repository reader to help consolidate my other repos (BitBucket, GitLab), which inevitably started to impose more restrictions (disk space, MFA), as well. It's no GitHub, but works, doesn't cache, and is pure PHP.
You really, really do. Please, for your own benefit, take a step back and touch grass, literally. There is so much more to this world than Github of all things.
> Every day, multiple times per day, for over 18 years... During my honeymoon while my wife is still asleep? Yeah, GitHub
This is addiction
but most of all we’re humans :)
happy to see that some humans can still feel emotions, real emotions, and not be ashamed by them.
And I think that you and GitHub went through the stages of life together. They probably weren't exactly parallel, but I bet you measure and remember your life through GitHub's life to some degree, along with the projects you had there.
There's no question that with your drive and acumen that you could build the GitHub that you both had and want. It might be your next chapter.
That is indeed a dangerous slip. I hope yours wasn't an Apple machine. Warranty might be an issue, because even if just one key got soiled, they will propose you should replace "practically" the entire machine (or rather make you; because well, replacing just that exact part that was damaged would be less expensive and hence less efficient and environmentally unfriendly).
On the other hand, not at all ridiculous; dramatic yes. I almost felt sad when Orkut shut down. Almost. And around the time XMPP/Jabber stopped being like email when Google/Fb pulled the plug. Can't remember whether it was at the same time. I became numb to such fast and slow metamorphoses a long time ago and I feel sad about this numbness. It's a forced cynicism I'd say. These are such inane corporate events/changes and yet these are so deeply embedded in our lives. Without check and any power over them. So perpetual cynicism works.
PS. I really found Ghostty to be cool (and fast!). Sadly, I reverted to stock Terminal, not because Terminal is as good, but because I no longer have/had much terminal usage (until I get back to work/coding again, and I hear things are happening in the terminal a lot more again with our world's new coding toys, LLMs, and whatnot). I also heard you on a podcast recently, and it was very interesting, and since then, I want to try Ghostty again, without even a real need for it yet.
Can I ask what was there that made you visit the site for anything other than reviewing pull requests and issues?
People get emotional over a car, over a house, over a pet... you could argue for everything it's just a car/house/pet... you can get a new one.
To be honest, the blog post is quite a lot of self-indulgent waffle. But I forgive you for that, "each to their own", as they say.
What I won't forgive you for is writing such a long blog post and then completely missing the bottom-line.
Do not write "I'll share more details about where the Ghostty project will be moving to in the coming months".
If you're going to make me read such a long blog post, then at least have an answer ready-to-go for the critical question that everybody is going to ask !
"I'm going to become a vegetarian" vibes.
Ghostty might be an open source and free product, but that doesn't mean that Mitchell in particular, that works on it, treats it any differently to how a for-profit company would treat its own software.
If you're using a SAAS that offers a product to both companies and individuals with the same feature set, and it's uptime is anything less three-nines, it's not fit for purpose.
Frankly, I'm amazed companies aren't walking away and giving the same reasons.
You mean being affected by the constant outages that make the product literally unusable? If you were doing any serious work with it you might understand.
Back to Github... I wonder how much of the "enshitification" can be tied to the acquisition and corporatization by Microsoft... (I am going to guess "alot")
Take care.
So do I. At the same time, GitHub has evolved into a SPOF for the entire software industry. It badly needs some real competition.
18 years is a good run as far as these things go.
The reality is it is a bit irrational to love a saas so much and cry about it. I’ve been using GitHub as long as you and I feel nothing for it. To most people moving off of GitHub is a huge hassle, an annoyance rather than a tragedy.
I think the biggest damage is the project visibility. Everything else is more of an annoyance.
:)
I would hope they would prioritize stability and features that devs have been asking for but it seems like that is not where their focus is at.
Regardless of the reason, it's undeniable that GitHub is facing some serious issues. The unofficial status page[1] tells a horrifying story.
I would absolutely love to get some insider perspective on this (if only to learn how to prevent it from happening anywhere I work), but I think it's clear to anyone who has been paying any attention that GitHub is a sinking ship and the only reason people haven't abandoned it already is inertia. Considering how much else is changing in software right now I don't think inertia is enough to sustain a company.
Edit: 2001, I see one (1) banner ad, and that ad was seemingly for an OSDN (Open Source Developer Network) conference. https://web.archive.org/web/20010517002942/http://sourceforg...
Given SourceForge only hosted Open Source software, and had no source of revenue beyond ads and sponsors for quite a long time, AFAIR, I think they get a pass on a banner ad.
(My SF account dates from June 2004. I expect I was thinking about using it as version control for a FOSS project I was working on at the time, though I don't know why, as it seems SF didn't support svn until 2005. Maybe I couldn't find any better options? The pre-GitHub ecosystem was pretty bad! But, luckily, I ended up not having time for any FOSS stuff from about autumn 2004, so: problem solved. And when I next looked, in early 2010, everything seemed to be git+github, and all the better for it.)
But, it had a few years where every OSS developer I knew had nothing but positive feelings toward SourceForge. It gave one of the projects I work on thousands of dollars worth of transit over the years. It's hard for folks who've only ever worked on an "everything for small developers is a loss leader" internet to understand that we used to pay for and manage our own servers. I had a $200/month bill for just my Open Source projects on a couple of colocated servers.
Yes, SourceForge went through a lot of shitty stuff. The overtly hostile stuff (adware inserted in OSS projects) happened after it changed hands. But, when the revenue of their original model dried up and they couldn't stay on top of new development (being slow to offer a good git experience was a fatal mistake).
Anyway, it's not great now (though it is now owned by seemingly decent folks, who haven't really been able to find a way to make it work), and it went through a period where it was a borderline criminal enterprise, but it started out as a genuinely helpful part of the OSS community.
And nobody learned their lesson and they all piled over to the next centralized system that offered "FREE!".
And so it goes.
No, as others have said it wasn't always that way. And more importantly it's not that way now. But yes, for a while there it was the epitome of enshittication. How that worked out is kinda hopeful in a way: it went broke, was bought out, and went back to being something usable again. In fact they added a lot of enhancements.
I know because I was one of the ones that went back to it. I didn't like having git being forced down my throat, and sourceforge was one of the few left that supports a whole pile of VCSs. I made my Makefiles [0] support it so I didn't need to deal with the UI, and ended up very happy.
Everyone wondered why I wasn't on github, and queried my sanity at the time. But I say not liking the git cli is perfectly sane. Now jj has come along that excuse has gone, but it was a good one at the time. "github sucks" has conveniently come along as a reason to stay on sourceforge.
Seriously, if you are considering ditching github, take a look at sourceforge. The current owners BizX deserve some reward for the time they've put into it, and their patience.
[0] https://sourceforge.net/p/http-proxy-tunnel/code/ci/default/...
If it weren't bad enough, github often has issues when the unofficial status page doesn't report them, so the actual number is even worse.
If you filter for major/critical outages, their uptime of core services in trailing 12 months all have two 9's.
https://isgithubcooked.com/?severities=major.critical
Also, a huge part of their cumulatively-bad availability story is copilot, which is a functionality (LLM inference) that most organizations have struggled to get two 9's of availability in for the last 9 months.
Given GitHub has become a utility service globally this should be frankly worrisome to everyone let alone the developer community actively using it. It’s intertwined into many things now beyond simply source code hosting and PRs. And I am surprised GitHub leadership is ok with the state of things. Having worked at a lot of 5-6 9’s shops, this would have been all hands on deck, all roadmaps paused, figure it out or perish sorts of stuff.
I think at least three 9's would be the baseline. But I'm also sympathetic that they had a *post-exit* scaling of write volume of like, idk, 1000x???
Very few orgs would survive that kind of scale and retain three 9's.
The things aren't profile pictures not loading in saudi, they're botching merge jobs, git/api operations being down, pull requests not loading, etc. And that's on top of the plethora of UI bugs that have been pervasive for years that aren't blocking functionality.
And it should not depend on their status page which seems to take a while to catch up when there's an actual outage.
You can pick whichever services you feel fall into this category in the top.
For the bundle I chose, there have only been 3 totally clean weeks so far in 2026 :/
Why is the graph more dense on the right side?
I do not work at MSFT but I don't feel that I need insider perspective to understand what's going on. GitHub is being managed the way other services get managed once they're bought by big companies. Initially fine, then starts to decline, then eventually craters. Everything becomes the numbers game.
Microsoft, Oracle, VMware, CA (where software goes to die), Salesforce, the list goes on. Every once in a great while there's a good M&A team that doesn't fuck it up but that's sadly rare.
It's called a vesting schedule. ;)
What I've seen is that usually the founders and heavy hitters from the original company are very BS-averse and basically just stay around to collect their money and then jet for a situation that doesn't suck.
For the rest of the gang, it tends to bifurcate: some folks stay at the big company indefinitely after the acquisition because while they can see the suck, nowhere else pays as well or is as cushy (I know people who have been thinking about leaving for 12 years). Still others excel at big company work and make a happy career out of it for a while but don't stay forever.
I’d like to offer a different perspective: the “institutional knowledge” often (but not always, of course) are the old timers that have been gatekeeping knowledge in order to make themselves irreplaceable.
I’ve seen this a couple of times, even in faang-sized companies.
I’m not sure this is the case of GitHub though.
It might be due to lower quality code spit out by some llm, reviewed by some llm and shipped to production by some llm-generated pipeline.
Also, wasn’t github pushed to move to azure?
Anyways, it surely is a strong signal of engineering culture degrading.
As so often happens, that didn't last long.
Nest was originally independent. Didn't take long for it to merge with the Google Home brand.
I'm sure there are countless other examples.
It is honestly so shameful that we keep falling for this gambit. It is nothing more than a rank "but this time is different!"
Economics is what drives things. It is what drives things in households and it is what drives things in companies.
Unless times are truly great or the company is truly forward-looking, promises of freedom and independence from the business cycle is just an empty promise of creating a research lab.
But you’re right that it probably wasn’t the same people that got burned by 90s Microsoft.
And its not like Github's load stayed linear over the last 8 years since the acquisition. Repo creation and pushes went exponential about 2 years ago with the AI boom, so even with fantastic execution I think they'd still be struggling hosting the ever expanding archive of all code in the world.
I'm not sure who "we" is in this story, but the _most_ optimistic of my peers pointed to typical MS projects of that scale having a little proper investment in interesting features and also taking at least a couple years to fail. HN sentiment wasn't positive either. The 99th percentile in favor of MS were fine with it, but the 90th percentile recognized the M&A for what it was, especially as specific features started showing their colours.
Lest this come across as a drive-by insult, I'm actually very curious who "we" is. Humanity is a very, very broad spectrum, and my intuition often doesn't appropriately capture the divers backgrounds of real people, despite spending large amounts of time with (usually from working alongside) deck-hands, captains, sanitation workers, bankers, pilots, jackhammer operators, semi drivers, farmers, programmers, mathematicians, and a host of other people. The gap I'm seeing is likely in my understanding (rather than, e.g., the post being mal-formed), so I'd like to correct that.
Neither me nor dozens of my acquaintances fell for it. 100% of us said "GitHub is toast, it's just a matter of time". And we and many others were right.
Your "we" is misplaced.
Not sure if it mattered after that but they had that weird Tom Preston-Werner scandal that got him fired. Since he was the CTO, I kind of suspect that sent them on a collision course with needing to exit the VC round and Microsoft paid out.
All long term business goodwill and reputation is simply there to burn to keep the bubble going.
If companies actually meant it then they’d sponsor these projects instead of buying them. The reason they choose to buy is so that they can make decisions about the direction of that project. If not immediately, then at least at some point in the future.
I was there for a couple years after the acquisition and just couldn't stand seeing it. I felt I was becoming useless working in a mad house that was becoming more maddening everyday. And MSFT just keeps replacing leadership with more and more disconnected people who just don't get it, who just never used GitHub like the OG users did. Two years ago I interviewed again for my old team, largely out of curiosity, and the Microsoft engineering manager asked me some brain teaser question as my interview. The disconnect is just too large.
They don't take GitHub seriously. It's a toy to MSFT and vibes matter more than the product itself. And they hire for it using MSFT drone logic, fill it with people hired and profiled to be MSFT-lifers, and these two things don't mix.
Sorry I don't have anything great to say. And of course, many of these MSFT folks were actually damn good, but they were swimming in a sea of MSFT drone.
Sorry, why the hell would any company do this? Goodwill is measured by MBA's in pennies and they paid *billions*.
This is like that time Google acquired the .dev domain "to reserve it for developers" but then ended up selling it- like everyone said they would.
You have got to be absurdly naive to believe that Microsoft does altruistic things, if there's no direct (or indirect) business they're not doing it: they are famously not a charity.
They have to be the richest men on the planet, retire, and then they'll do some charity.. perhaps because they feel guilty about what they did on an island or something.
A lot of companies say that when they acquire another, and it might be true for a few years, it might even be the actual intention of the people involved in making the acquisition, but it usually doesn't last.
Can you explain what you mean by this? Like what does "fine" mean? What, specifically in the management, is the "decline"? What does "craters" mean?
In this frame you can see that making the product worse (paying less for its upkeep) and raising prices are just two sides of the same coin - extract more resources.
Almost no big company has any reason to shepherd a product in a way that's beneficial to its users because they have so much momentum that even changing their approach either costs too much money or those in power are too insulated from the outcomes (fix it for me or I will fire you while I continue to make bad choices and under fund the product).
To paraphrase a popular quote from IBM: “Executives and MBAs can never be held accountable: therefore executives and MBAs must not be allowed to make decisions.”
Slightly less flippant: The only way to stop this is to stop letting companies like MSFT gobble up smaller companies. That doesn’t seem likely in the near future, though. Once the Borg assimilate something, it’s just a matter of time before it’s digested and drained of value.
I'm not really sure what the point of encouraging new development is if the end result is "big company scoops it up and makes it shitty, but people get to enjoy it for a few brief moments before that happens."
Afaik they never took any (serious) VC money.
CA got bought (ironically) by Broadcom 8 years ago, so now Broadcom is where software goes to die.
Death by spreadsheet. Happens to everything.
GitHub was in the right place at the right time to be a success despite the fact it's a massively clobbered together mess.
Oh, and don't forget the cases where the diff view sometimes misses some files for unknown reasons. Both in the 'new experience' and the 'legacy view'. You just can't trust it as much anymore.
I think that is exaggerating things a bit... GitHub is alive and well, and they're hosting more and more projects each month. A few well-known projects leaving every now and then doesn't exactly spell doom for GitHub
I'm not an insider but would put good money on the migration to Azure being the root cause of the stability problems.
On the other hand, I can't help but think that some of this heartbreak would have been avoidable, if only he possessed more of the Richard-Stallman-esque attitude that non-free software is inherently suspect and unethical. Github has always been non-free software hosted by someone else, and run according to its owners' rules and for its owners' benefit, not ultimately the end user. This was true in 2008 and it's true today.
I've also used Github for a significant chunk of my life, often because I had to for my job. But I've never developed an emotional attachment to it. Indeed, I have long been annoyed that Github is someone else's proprietary software, that does what it can to structurally lock users into their platform despite being built upon free-software git.
I've never been able to love software that requires an email-based account and accepting terms of service and that doesn't work in Iran because the company that runs it obeys US sanctions law.
So without reservation on my end, I'm glad to see that ghostty is moving off of github to something else.
Yup. At KDE we never seriously considered GitHub. We always built our own git infra, and eventually landed on GitLab, after banding together with Gnome and a (generous and forthcoming) GitLab to convince them to move everything we needed from the Enterprise Edition to the free software Community edition.
I think we've had exactly one multi-hour git outage in 16 years.
I remember that the first instance of their CI solution was a separate server/service that coordinated CI jobs on runners. That was a bit cumbersome. But then they integrated the CI coordination into the main server and you only needed to figure out the CI runner part.
Today I would likely have gone for Forgejo with runners for such a small company if I were to self-host. Less moving parts and smaller footprint.
...until it comes to bikeshedding new standards
Issues and CI are the only lock-in. The latter is legitimate because you're using someone else's CPU, but every developer has the tooling to "git diff" and write comments if we could just agree on a format.
Sure, a little more complicated than “Create Issue”, but not that much for devs. We could even simplify the workflow with e.g. git-issue or something like that, similar to e.g. git-send-email.
git issue init “There is a problem”
git issue push
git issue get 6 # short for issue@{6}What I ended up with is a version of a static forge - Charm's soft-serve to host the repos and a forked version of the pico.sh pgit static site generator. I added git-bug integration to track issues in the repo and an alternative CLI to git-bug that works better when collaborating with agents.
A static forge site is very resilient to bot traffic because it only renders a limited number of commits, instead of pathologically allowing a near infinite number of URLs for bots to crawl.
https://kilimanjaro.io if you want to see what it looks like.
We are actually facing 2 distinct problems:
- Github is a centralized, controlled git hosting, identity, collaboration platform.
- Bots are attacking any public facing interface.
So maybe the solution is:
- to keep a Radicle node private/behind fences to lower the maintenance/security burden, with eventually access to selected collaborators.
- publish the repos with a static site generator like pgit
Using a separate Git repo with a defined naming structure I could appreciate.
(e.g. gitrepo.org/project and gitrepo.org/project_issues )
It's not unlike the emotional drama I see each time Netflix raises prices (people get really upset about that), or video game discussion (the worst). If it's not worth the the value proposition, move on ... don't hang on / waste emotional cycles on Netflix or something like that ...
Granted I'm not a robot, I get the the emotional connection too, I think back to my early days in computing and I still fondly think of the now defunct manufacturer of my first PC, later the Windows 95 start me up commercials ... it was something magical.
I think that model works well when it comes to code, but I don't think the non-free software movement ever really figured out how to deal with services and data. Even if GitHub was completely 100% GPL Free Software... the user accounts and everyone's comment history and stuff lives on a database somewhere. The servers are running somewhere. That's where the community is.
Even if you could take GitHub and spin up your own fork running the exact same software, the community isn't there. The interactions aren't there, the history isn't. It's like building a clone of your childhood house and wondering why your young parents don't magically appear in it.
The question of how to create free-software-mediated online communities that don't involve storing user identity and data in a company's private database is critical. The user database, and what can be built upon it, is the single biggest reason people do use Github despite its flaws.
Since we’re getting all philosophical, heartbreak isn’t inherently bad, it means you had the opportunity to love something deeply. Being engaged in the world means taking risks on things that might disappoint you. I do wish more of that love were directed at open source, but it’s not as if open source is without heartbreak and disappointment. Richard Stallman is sort of emblematic of someone who starts out with good intentions, but whose paranoid risk aversion probably put a ceiling on his potential?
And I remember seeing that and thinking "huh... not at all a bad idea."
There is a specific kind of leader that can turn such ships around, and they are strong in their convictions, and aren't just "managers", but visionaries coupled with strong execution and power to attract talent.
I think a new GitHub will emerge and when it's just right, will grow like wildfire (like OpenClaw, or even GitHub itself did during the SVN and SourceForge era). And many are already trying to be that new GitHub.
Really? I can only think of two: Codeberg and Sourceforge. Which are both great, but that's not what I'd call "many".
I guess it's possible that my experience is wildly different than others, but if we're talking about volume of usage today rather than individual preferences, it's kind of shocking for me that someone wouldn't think to reference Gitlab at all in the list of potential successors, let alone not mention it literally first.
> Really? I can only think of two: Codeberg and Sourceforge. Which are both great, but that's not what I'd call "many".
- frequently needed navigation links buried within menus within other menus
- menus labeled by mysterious icons, sometimes with mysterious text, sometimes with no text at all
- authentication system that has failed me in a variety of ways over the years, even locking me out of an account in one case
- client-side script execution required to do anything all, even simply display a file
As I said, I haven't kept a list, but GitLab is very much in the category of interfaces that were built by javascript fanatics who don't understand (or don't care about) ergonomics or privacy. I accept that not everyone is bothered by its many problems, but I avoid it when I can.
It'll probably never happen. But it'd be really nice if it did.
It's a bit short of actual PRs, but in some ways, especially with agents, the lo-fi approach has some advantages.
Also nice language evolutions: "socialize their changes to projects", "lo-fi approach" :)
Do you know that you can just send a patch via email (assuming you're not using the gmail web client)? You can even save the diff on some hosting website and send the link via any text medium.
Some other accepted git workflows, like rebasing onto master, or even adding a "committed-by" or "signed-off-by", don't preserve SHA1 hashes either, and it seems you don't really need that property outside of closely collaborating cliques.
However, I consider that there is still not a great UI for the core service, in special for a complex project.
In the other hand, I bet jujutsu has the best basic take, and is still missing a good forge.
jjplace/jjhub/codetown, whatever. Doesn't matter.
Names don't matter that much for brands. Names just have to be simple enough to remember (ideally two syllables or less). What the heck does Nike mean, for example? Boeing is just someone's name. Microsoft is just two words smashed together. A brand's name literally doesn't matter.
I would guess under 10%, and only that high because Nike sells shoes in Greece and Italy.
At first I thought the KDE apps all playing on the K was kinda weird and awkward, but as time went on I really appreciated how easy it was to search for them due to this. So I really think it's a benefit to play on traditional words rather than use them as-is.
("Please don't sue us.")
Mi vidas kion vi tie faris.
pujil's patch alebgra is sick but the whole system implementation is so complex my guy is still toiling away on it, unfinished, after half a decade
The same goes for Github to a degree. Yes, there are hot paths that "everyone" uses, but also areas where most people never wander and other use daily.
With what I heard about GitHub Actions, the GitLab CI pipelines should be much better.
Not that I haven’t shot myself in the foot with GitLab pipelines on numerous occasions.
For example - We adopted GitHub Actions, then we swapped it out this year. Our own primary use case is code hosting + PRs. We want it to talk to the other (better) tools that intended for their use case. We want it in a secure yet fast and available manner. Nothing else. I don't care about projects, issues, or whatever super app they're trying to become.
But mailing patches is a pain in the ass. VCSes should support squashing and rebasing.
If AI replaces software development the way that big tech company management wants it to, maybe they'll converge again. In the mean time, people want a git remote and they're getting an unstable host diluted with some flaky vibecoding bullshit.
Hosting a Docker container is a full-time job? I have worked at several employers self-hosting their own instances without issues or a lot of effort. Many FOSS projects do, that definitely do not have a full-time guy for that. What are you talking about?
I imagine requirements and integrations may differ a lot. I have seen many incidents with a large instance.
if you accept the performance hit, it's great quality software though.
however, a fairly large company with 100-120 users (developers, devops engineers, QAs etc) and ~600 gitlab runners ran happily on a 8 core / 64gb virtual machine (hosted on a local vmware cluster).
so it is (was?) also fairly cheap.
I do agree about performance, though.
And then impose the same requirements that killed GitHub in the first place.
- "Uuh, no"
Be a pretty quick story
Not really the fix you think it might be. That wouldn't change Microsoft's ownership, and he'd still be hamstrung by whatever cost-cutting, anti-competitive, user-unfriendly bullshit Microsoft wants to shove down Github users' throats.
Has anyone else shared this sentiment? If so Redmond needs to lean in hard.
this is an absolute killing blow for Microsoft if it gains real traction. You made developers your cornerstone eight years ago for nearly 8 billion dollars. you spent another 2bn on minecraft to clinch the deal with young developers and the code camp kids.
Youve lost the OS, and the server realm. Lose the developers, and youre on your way to becoming the Xerox of the 21st century.
This is a very HN take. MS is terrible or at best "second tier" on everything they do including gaming, they also lost the mobile race, they're very likely going to lose the AI race, but they'll still hold hostage of the vast swathes of average white collar workers with Office, people that don't care at all about technology as long as they have Word and Excel.
There's a reason why writing .docx was one of the first proper skills that Claude got.
I can't wait for the anti-trust lawsuits. M365 and O365 are already super shady in terms of being able to migrate out or be interoperable with other solutions. "Accidental" roadblocks almost everywhere.
I'm old enough to remember this happening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open...
Basically, Microsoft furiously bribed their way into formally standardizing the utterly broken MS Office formats, so EU and potentially other regulators couldn't mandate them to be "interoperable" with existing standards (e.g. OpenDocument, based on OpenOffice, which was on its normal way to become standardized with no fast tracking and no bribing). They even called it "Office Open" to foster confusion.
They can do whatever they want and get away with it because a big part of their business model is, much like Oracle and SAP, based on bribing government bodies across the world.
Even the research hospital I worked at had a proper SELinux setup on the Red Hat installations, but by-quantity most servers were CentOS and it was way more of a free-for-all than it should have been, e.g. I was the fed-up admin when I was really not qualified! I screwed up a lot. Not that big of a deal: this was research-related computing and deidentified data. All the clinical computing was Windows Server. That is not a coincidence, it is really a market difference.
As someone who hates Windows 11... I do like the core Windows kernel, and would much rather do IT on Windows machines than Linux machines. Windows NT is very fussy and a bit bloated, but a huge part of that is an admirable commitment to backwards compatibility; a lot of XP applications run fine on Windows 11, except DPI wonkiness. And Windows' driers advantage isn't just commercial support; the kernel is fundamentally leaner and faster than Linux at real-time IO, and better about cleanly isolating driver processes across privilege levels. Very broadly, compared to Linux I find administering Windows easier to navigate and harder to screw up, especially with handling user permissions. Surely part of this is what I grew up with, but there's also a values difference: a lot of Linux users like how low-friction it can be since the OS doesn't get in your way. I kind of like that Windows makes you turn an excessive number of disarming keys... even when I am frustrated by it.
It does make me quite sad that the only real general-use OS options are the apex of a 20th-century operating system family, Apple's version of that, and a truly 21st-century monolith-microkernel hybrid whose specific design is a mystery to public science.
What is this a reference to? Fuchsia?
Personally I think not enough credit to macOS here; Apple's Mach/XNU has been microkernel flavored since the NeXT days and many subsystems run in userspace like Windows.
Really the security of macOS is probably the best of all of the desktop OSes, and as annoying as it can be.
It's something that Microsoft leadership themselves certainly seems to have believed at times. From "developers, developers, developers, developers!" to courting Linux-targeting webdevs with WSL to VSCode, they've done lots to court developers, sometimes explicitly professing it as a central part of their strategy.
I can't disagree with any of the rest, though. Microsoft's (anti-)competitive strategy has never been about excellence so much as positioning worse stuff to win in virtue of network effects and integrations.
yes, Wine is an emulator
I think it's more accurate to say that Wine contains some components that are emulators, not that it is an emulator. Sure, it has to emulate the x86 MMU's segmentation behavior, because Linux doesn't set it up the same way. It has to emulate x86 interrupt & CPU exception delivery, because Windows delivers those to applications in a different way than Linux does. For some very old programs, it has to emulate I/O ports and some device behavior. I think GDI and DirectDraw require emulation of a framebuffer and palette hardware.
But the vast majority of Wine's code is not emulation; most of it is a clean-room reimplementation of the win32 APIs, a PE/COFF loader, Windows registry, etc. All of those parts are implementations of API contracts and binary format parsers, not emulation, in the same way that GNUstep is a reimplementation of NeXTSTEP/Cocoa, and not an emulator. (The main difference being that Wine can run Windows executables unmodified, whereas GNUstep expects you to recompile/relink from source. That is a sizeable difference, but not an emulator-sized difference.)
And yes, the computer science definition of "emulator" doesn't specify hardware: it's simply a system that reproduces the externally observable behavior of another system. But if we follow that definition too closely, then things that are clearly not emulators become emulators. Like musl and glibc are emulators of the C standard library (or of each other?), Android is an emulator of the Java virtual machine, and Mesa's software renderer is an emulator of OpenGL or a GPU (that latter bit is tempting, but it really isn't a GPU emulator). At this level, "emulator" just means "abstraction layer", which makes it pretty useless as a term if we take it that far.
So I think "WINE Is Not an Emulator" is true. It contains some bits that are absolutely emulators, but it is not, in its entirety, an emulator, and emulating isn't the function of the bulk of its code.
(I'm not trying to be pedantic here; this was actually a fun thought exercise about emulation in general and Wine in particular.)
And yet we're where we are. MS is still one of the most important corporations. Perhaps the most important one if you only count enterprise usage.
People are ANGRY about the AI boom impact right now and "microslop" is trending harder than "M$" back in the day.
MH had a weird ass set of Tweets a month or so ago talking about GitHub needing disruption and how the UI was bad. Now it's "Not fun anymore".
I guess you die a hero or live long enough to be irrelevant and shouting at clouds like Stallman.
Work at a company on GH Enterprise. Outside those recent major incidents and a few spots here and there we haven't even noticed issues. It NEVER comes up on engineering or leadership meetings as an issue or risk. Not a single time has GitHubs issues come up as an agenda item. Yeah, YMMV but still...
The writer of this blog post is Mitchell Hashimoto, and he has posted positively about AI, so that doesn't track at all.
The reason people are talking about it is because the decline is rapid. That's worse than the raw downtime. There's a sense that it will be even worse in a year.
I'm not a fan of AI everywhere but I have 0 reason to think this is from AI usage at Microsoft. Still, we talk about the issues a lot. We used to do our project management in GitHub. For whatever reason, projects don't work anymore. You can add an issue to a project and it won't show up. So we moved that part off of GitHub. That's too bad, I liked linking to issues.
If this happens enough, the only thing left will be hosting code, and we'll look at each other and go "we can do this anywhere"
Do you have anything to contribute other than "everyone is irrational but me?"
You think? They're still pushing the "native" Minecraft that isn't scriptable aren't they? And maintaining the fully moddable java MC against their will.
Not sure if that balances out the burning fire of hate I feel for Microsoft Office but it's something.
A suggestion: use git-bug https://github.com/git-bug/git-bug in addition to migrating to another forge like Codeberg. It saves issues, PRs etc in git itself (not on a branch - on a specially crafted ref). It offers two way sync with a lot of providers.
Other VCSes like fossil store issues alongside the repo. I think it's appropriate because in a sense, issues are part of what gives meaning to the code (like documentation)
You don't want to start your Saturday morning declaring an _action struct, then filling the rest of the day staring at research papers about the current state of fast homomorphic encryption.
It was born out of frustration and does just that. It is about to go v1 within days.
I use it for my project[0] to keep issues centralized with the repo, but I still use Github Discussions as a pseudo-bug tracker to let random users provide input. If it's a bug I add it to git-bug and sync it to Github issues for public viewing[1], but if you want use bug reports that's not really going to work.
[0] https://github.com/stryan/materia
[1] Ironically I got this workflow idea from ghostty and mise, both of which require users to submit bug reports as discussions first and only generate tagged issues once an actionable bug is determined.
This is incorrect.
$ git remote get-url origin
ssh://git@github.com/git-bug/git-bug.git
$ for n in bugs identities; do echo "${n} on the remote: " $(git ls-remote origin "refs/${n}/\*" | wc -l); done
bugs on the remote: 453
identities on the remote: 311
That said, yes, GitHub is still our source of truth, as our web application does not currently support "guest" access, and there are other platform features that our community uses that we do not currently have support for (e.g. discussions and pull requests). Big changes to the web ui are coming soon, which will help to unlock the ability to do these things.
I've also been in talks with the Radicle team about possible collaboration.
I didn't know git-bug doesn't support PRs yet. I think pull requests should be modeled as a kind of issue. It's an issue with some metadata that points to a commit (and besides the usual issue operations like add new comment or edit a comment, you also have the operation of editing the commit associated with the PR)
If git-bug gains suppport for Github discussions, it should also be able to import discussions from other places like a discourse forum. I think it would be kinda neat for projects that want to be self contained
> I've also been in talks with the Radicle team about possible collaboration.
This is awesome!!
I was thinking about fossil in the context of agentic workflows the other day, after seeing a co-worker go all in on sort of shifting themselves to a TPM workflow, using a locally hosted kanban board (inspired by OpenAI's Symphony).
It'd make things easier to have everything shoved into the repo, other than that everything is now shoved in the same repo being handled by the barely constrained chaos monkey that is an LLM coding agent. Locking things down gets hard if it's got access to the whole thing there.
Technically the issues in Fossil are part of the repository, along with the wiki, code, forum, etc. They come along with every clone and (mostly) cannot be deleted from the historical record.
Items of Fossil that are merely "alongside" instead of actually in the repository include unversioned files, chatroom content, and users and access controls. (Not an exhaustive list.)
Does it have bidirectional tracking with Github? (if I create or comment on an issue in Github it will be reflected on epiq, and if I create on epiq, some bot will post it to Github). For me this is the key feature.
Also
> The system is designed to assure robustness and uses a number of techniques and design patterns to avoid merge conflicts.
I think the docs should describe this in detail.
Anyway maybe ask him to post this to HN some day!
An integration layer with github issues or other platforms is definitely not unthinkable.
V1 is about to be released in the coming days.
Thanks for the feedback. I will add a section about that in the readme!
[EDIT] - readme updated with section about event sourcing strategy
It’s not a fun place for me to be anymore. I want to be there but it doesn't want me to be there. I want to get work done and it doesn't want me to get work done. I want to ship software and it doesn't want me to ship software.
Github is really Microsoft. The above paragraph captures perfectly what it's like to work in a big company like Microsoft.
When Github was a startup, it was both a tech company and a social media for coders and a real-life social scene (especially in SF, some pretty epic stories over the years).
Once Github was acquired, it was a countdown to all the soul being sucked out of it and simply a mechanism being left behind.
1. Increasing amount of AI-generated code in their codebase, decreasing the quality of the service.
2. Bought by Microsoft, and their bad engineering culture has spread to GitHub.
Perhaps it's a bit of both.
It started being very bad when MS pushed for AI
According to GitHub, Azure migration is the attempt at a fix/upscaling, not the underlying cause of the issues.
Addressing GitHub’s recent availability issues: https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/addressing-gi...
An update on GitHub availability: https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/an-update-on-...
The issue is that they're not a scrappy startup anymore, they are defacto running the internets development infrastructure and are owned by a trillion dollar company.
So the bar they're measured by has changed and they haven't even tried to keep up, paying lip service to reliability when you are critical infrastructure is not going to go well.
There were reliability issues in 2010 for sure, but it feels worse now; the period before acquisition was the most stable (2014-2017).
I've never pushed a commit and thought huh, I wonder what copilot thinks of this.
They said they're designing for a future that would require 30X of today's scale.
They did not say that they need to scale 30X to meet today's demand.
To be fair, the "demand is up 30X" claim was spammed all over social media so it's easy to see why this topic is so misunderstood
Im old enough to remember the hotmail migration to win2k (then 2k3) and the postmortem. I was also old enough to look at the rotor source code. Yah, that one, running managed code in freebsd.
If that’s the case, then it’s not necessarily a problem with Azure itself.
https://isolveproblems.substack.com/p/how-microsoft-vaporize... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47616242
1. The acquired company was small company to the acquirer. 2. We need to improve scalability and reduce cost!
Then, they migrated. The new system was worse and didn't have parity. It was years. Customers were moving off. The project/product shut down.
uptime:
Incomplete pull request results in repositoriesSubscribe Update - We are actively reindexing the remaining ElasticSearch indexes. Our priority is ensuring correctness and avoiding further impact. We are taking a measured approach to safely backfill data and will share additional updates as progress continues. Apr 28, 2026 - 15:58 UTC Update - After yesterday’s incident, we are investigating cases where /pulls and /repo/pulls pages are not showing all indexed pull requests. This is because our Elasticsearch cluster does not currently contain all indexed documents.
No pull request data has been lost. As pull requests are updated, they will be reindexed. We are also working on accelerating a full reindex so these pages return complete results again. Apr 28, 2026 - 14:51 UTC Investigating - We are investigating reports of degraded performance for Pull Requests Apr 28, 2026 - 14:17 UTC
https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/an-update-on-...
I suppose it's a bit too on the nose to point out that git is decentralized and itself doesn't really suffer from this, nor need it.
I would not be surprised if Github has to stop offering so many services for free.
I‘ve noticed that some projects have „Claude“ as one of their top three contributors.
They aren't, of course. The Y axis is missing. GitHub didn't have 0 daily commits at the start of 2023.
https://handsondataviz.org/how-to-lie-with-charts.html#exagg...
They dont have a service usage problem they have a slop problem. Ban the slop and the platform will thrive
Short aside, I have to rehost dotnet CLI binaries because their hosting infrastructure is so unreliable that it was causing CI failures regularly.
Gamedev being the most prominent that I have personally witnessed.
EDIT: Why are you booing me, I'm right.
GitHub took a massive hit in credibility when it got bought by Microsoft. We are a burned generation, we have seen the worst of Microsoft. This created a massive crack in the foundation of trust for most people.
Then Copilot happened. Some people dug how the training is done, and one GitHub employee responded by mail that every public repository including GPL repositories are included (the relevant Tweets are deleted unfortunately). The created crack has deepened. Some of us (incl. me) left GitHub.
As Copilot entrenched, Microsoft's product development practices and philosophy took over, and vibe coding started to be used by hordes of developers, GitHub's code foundations started to crumble. Add the big migrations they're doing & regressions they are causing on the UI now, and we're here.
GitHub's first enshittification cycle is over. Now we're starting the second cycle. The bloated, slow, entrenched hegemon's decay from relevance phase.
It'll be a slow decay. It won't fall in a day, but they golden era is long gone.
Re: GPL, there are other open access datasets of git repos that make some distinctions between copyleft licenses but those are older resources now.
> Re: GPL, there are other open access datasets of git repos that make some distinctions between copyleft licenses but those are older resources now.
Arguably "The Stack" contains only permissively licensed code, but there are two repositories of mine inside it. One is a very simple logging library, without any license (which implies "All Rights Reserved"), and another is a fork of LightDM which I worked on, which is GPL licensed.
So any "permissively licensed" dataset probably contains at least one copylefted or strong copyrighted codebase, making them highly suspicious.
== EDIT ==
Found some. Kagi's date-constrained search to the rescue.
1. Should GitHub be sued for training Copilot on GPL code?: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31847931
2. GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33226515
3. AI-Powered GitHub Copilot Leaves Preview, Now Costs $100 a Year: https://developers.slashdot.org/story/22/06/25/0334207/ai-po...
4. GitHub Copilot is trained on all languages that appear in public repositories (CTRL+F on the page): https://web.archive.org/web/20260428180443/https://github.co...
So where are we going? Mitchell will be deciding for Ghostty. If github's current trajectory is anything to go by, everyone else will need to decide where to go sooner rather than later.
I'm worried that it will be a Babel scattering event and this open source superpower that github catalyzed (how to describe it?) will just evaporate.
I'm also worried that wherever we go next could have the same fate as github.
So what then? Radicle is the only thing that I've seen that could theoretically 'solve' the problem, though it still needs a lot of work: https://radicle.dev/
Companies will keep using GH for a long time because they seem to be really tolerant of outages (and have a massive switching cost depending on how much of GitHub they use outside of git).
Smaller teams/solo devs much less so.
Isn’t really anyway to coordinate it ahead of time, it’s more an emergent bottom up thing than a “all devs agree to move to X” ahead of time.
Now there is absolutely a benefit to co-locating issues and PRs with your code in the same git repo. In a way it becomes much simpler to move your entire repository and all activity when everything is in the same .git folder.
With Tangled your code is stored in your code repository and issues and PRs in your data repository. On the other hand the ATProto stuff is what means your project becomes discoverable and that other users in the network automatically can interact with your repository (likes, issues, etc).
From GitHub's Staff Research Engineer https://maggieappleton.com/zero-alignment/
And wdym even mean "lead the direction of tech". Its just people trying to build a product based on their views/vision.
Others are free to build their own competing visions? and everyones free to choose the platforms that they use.
I’m not sure what staff level means at GitHub, but at some other companies it’s just “senior++”, and people with 10yoe get that title quite often.
I'm sorry but this is just a perfect encapsulation of why American corporations are brazenly bad and corrupt without actual competition.
This is honestly no different than RFK Jr being the Secretary of HHS. I'm sure if you spoke with him, he'd say he was highly competent at this job too.
She is internet famous, sure, but she still has to prove if her ideas on how to evolve GitHub are the right one.
Ah. I didn't think we could debase the title of "engineer" any further, and yet here we are.
How do these people still have jobs post ZIRP?
I love it, but you have to deliver or else I will mock you :P
It does seem like it might, in general, be a very opportune time for GitLab (or another host) to publicly step up!
There seems to be a lot of chatter on X recently about wanting an entirely new GitHub usurper that doesn't look like GitHub at all, but in the short- to medium-term I expect this not to gain a huge amount of traction because of the sheer cultural embeddedness of git + GitHub in modern day software development.
In what way(s)?
How? I want to partake in the thought exercise.
What more could/should GitLab, for example, be doing to capitalize?
Last week I encountered a bug where my merge request simply didn't show that I deleted a file. Apparently it's because my MR included the creation of a folder with the same name as the basename of the deleted file. Unacceptable for a code hosting platform.
Other than that I miss GH Actions, a clear ui (gitlab has way too many sub-menus), a responsive ui (gitlab feels very sluggish). And while we don't have the Gitlab duo activated, it still pops out regularly eventhough I can't use it besides closing it. ...and I don't even want to start with their issue buard.
It strongly reminds me of Jira in terms of quality, which is no compliment.
I think Atlassian and Microsoft are genuinely in a competition to see who can make worse software and still have customers.
I wish Codeberg the best, but I thought it was a questionable choice for Zig and feel similarly for Ghostty—doesn't seem like a strict improvement.
When you take OSS projects that scale well, say Linux, Postgres, Kafka, redis, etc. they either scale up (Linux) which is arguable easier, or were able to scale out because there are thousands, if not millions, that have massive deployments pushing them to their limits.
Unless there is some sort of secure way to “open source” operational data for codeberg, or many others running huge deployments of Forgejo I don’t see it being very effective.
I do see Google having another go at code hosting though.
> This automatically generates the tables and columns... on-the-fly. It infers relations based on naming conventions.
Tangled uses the identity stuff from atproto which lets the important stuff (git, CI, etc) be decentralized while people only need one identity to contribute (and you can self host your PDS too). So nothing ends up being reliant on a third party.
For me that's a minor problem. The struggle of working across multiple code forges or making my code available on multiple is syncing CI/CD, issues, releases between them. I don't have the energy to maintain multiple versions of a pipeline.
Some projects that seem interesting: - https://tangled.org/ seems to be building out cool and exciting ways to write and interact with code (and they're distributed on the ATProto! But notably that's not their core selling point) - Microservices like https://pico.sh/ and https://sr.ht/ feel like fresh air...
They are still a WIP but it’s on our roadmap to continue to improve.
Means that my CI pipeline can be ~instantly moved to any provider, or a box that I own, or whatever.
I was looking to self-host forgejo but I didn't want to expose any SSH, and needing to be on a tailscale network just to develop also seemed flakey.
I'll stay on codeberg for now and check out tangled from time to time, because I think this is a good use of ATProto
Good luck to the team with migration! (And here's hoping it's ersc :))
I really wish an open-source developer of his caliber would also migrate to a serious microblogging service which isn't so openly hostile to truth and civility. Ending the sticky network effect of an evil service starts with its biggest, most prolific users migrating away.
This is the same bullshit that people bring up with Facebook, there’s no reason we can’t apply the same rubric to Twitter.
And also, there's some alternate microblogging site that is less hostile to truth and civility? Which site is that?
> And also, there's some alternate microblogging site that is less hostile to truth and civility? Which site is that?
Mastodon, by definition. Any hostile instance can be left for a better one.
moving away from X would just result in less visibility
If you have the time, it would be great to see you trying out Radicle, even if it’s just for a mirror to start; then see how we can turn that into something more integrated!
Best decision ever.
100% uptime. 100% less stress with each of the product/pricing changes over the past few months.
Was also able to build my own GitHub Copilot equivalent that auto-reviews MRs interactively.
Highly recommend it.
I remember quite a few years ago it having its own set of problems.
Having said that, I stumbled upon this curious blog post about a security issues in Forgejo: https://dustri.org/b/carrot-disclosure-forgejo.html
1. faster more configureable action runtimes so I can get faster builds 2. usable merge queues because the github one is a joke 3. some reasonable CI management and workflow debugging features
The shape of the curve helps make it a little easier to understand why availability has been so abysmal.
I have nothing to add to this. Comedy gold.
Why do I want that running on somebody else's computer? It's bad enough that most developers already rely on Anthropic or OpenAI. What value does a remote working repo add?
GitHub needs to slow down with the AI shit and spend manpower fixing what's broken. Actions is a complete fucking disaster.
Also I have no idea what Pierre is but their website is horrible.
That's not remotely true. I doubt most Copilot Business/Enterprise subscribers care about GitHub at all.
The alternatives aren't great. If any VCs wanna send a couple hundred grand my way, I'd be willing to start a GitHub alternative, if only so I could have a not-crappy place to host my own repos.
> This is no longer a place for serious work if it just blocks you out for hours per day, every day
Do people seriously experience outage every day? I really don't know... it always has been feeling like a once-per-six-month thing. Do people have extremely complex Actions that I can't fathom?
Yes. Think CI jobs that test every candidate PR against a matrix of build targets, run fuzzing, run simulation tests, run bench regression tests, etc etc. Modern CI workflow automation has reached way beyond what a pedestrian can fathom if you’re not on the wave.
I looked up my own ID and GitHub join date from the API, all the way back in 2009: https://api.github.com/users/dueyfinster
While I'm not going to say they stopped because of Microsoft (they didn't get acquired until 2018, though I would expect that talks were probably underway by sometime in 2017), the loss of something like this does feel emblematic of how tech culture got significantly less fun toward the end of the 2010s, and the pandemic just killed the rest of it for me.
(Of course, "fun" is in the eye of the beholder. It's possible that my tastes just changed as I got older.)
The vast majority of features GH offers are of no use to me. In fact, in the age of vibe coding, zero-friction drive-by contributions are a net negative. The UX has been steadily dropping for years. The recent abysmal record in availability and bugs is just the last drop in the bucket.
The writing was on the wall the day they were acquired. They had a good run, but those days are long over.
I don’t know, I love it. There are many alternatives like bitbucket, gitlab, but GitHub is still better overall.
Is it really this bad?
I've seen people complain about Github, but I thought it was more of a theoretical inconvenience rather than a real practical one. As in, the uptime for a serious software company should be 99.9, but two hours down just today, and constant outages over the month that they noticed... that seems way worse.
https://mrshu.github.io/github-statuses/
94 incidents in 90 days.
I remember saying to myself, "every single meeting room and common area in this building is designed around the consumption of alcohol--the long bar downstairs, the meeting room modeled after an airport lounge, the meeting room modeled after a smoking club, the meeting room / roof deck...
A year or two later they had that public "me-too" snafu (years before me-too) that led to a founder's resignation, a whole bunch of other people leaving, and then Microsoft acquiring the company. I wondered back then, is this the end of the company?
Perhaps so, but perhaps not... Here we are, 8 years the acquisition, only now lamenting a slow demise. That's a nice run for a startup acquired by a behemoth enterprise software company. With the exception of Redhat (which is debatable,) IBM had no ability to keep a software acquisition's culture, verve, or ability alive past a year or two.
To be fair, this could describe a lot of successful tech companies back in 2014.
> I wondered back then, is this the end of the company? [...] Perhaps so, but perhaps not
As much as that stuff was often pretty toxic and super not inclusive, I think Microsoft is nearly 100% to blame here for Github's decline.
And even though all the drinking was really not great, in some ways I do miss those days. They were fun. Then again, I'm in my mid-40s now and can't drink and party like that anymore. Today, even a single night out with 3-4 drinks (plus twice as much water) over the span of 6 hours or so makes me a useless lump of garbage for half of the next day.
And the search capabilities of alternative Forges are not the same (Mostly due to costs I assume)
I realize that everybody is different, but this still doesn't seem like the best of practices.
Because this is affecting the planet, our social ties, and everything else. And it's having impact on all of us indirectly
Well, he is not alone with that. Something isn't working - and Microsoft either does not realise it, or does not care. I think the microslop strategy consumed Microsoft internally; it seems unable to change trajectory now. It's like you are driving to a cliff, in a car but you are not the main driver. It's quite interesting to see though - people can now expect "which disaster will hit Github tomorrow".
On the other hand, I also think it is time that Github gets some serious competition. Gitlab is not that competition; codeberg also not really (they'd need to up the useful features by a LOT and keep on driving that - I just don't see they have enough energy and momentum for that, but as a smaller source code hosting platform they are not bad either).
GitLab: most similar to GitHub. Repos, CI/CD, issues. Hosted or self-host
Codeberg: free, non-profit, FOSS-friendly. Runs Forgejo. Where Zig went
Forgejo / Gitea: lightweight, self-host on a small server
Bitbucket: fine if you're already in Atlassian/Jira land
Sourcehut: minimalist, email-patch workflow. Fast but a culture shift
Radicle: peer-to-peer, no central server. Niche, principled
Tangled: newer, built on ATProto
But it's very interesting to read about the author's very different perspective. User 1299 in 2008 is wild. His Github account could share the Radler I'm drinking right now with me.
I see that it's genuinely sad, but proprietary software and services make you completely dependent on someone else. If you want to rely on something for the future it has to be FOSS, everything else is a rug that will be pulled under your feet eventually.
I'm with ya, but building services at the scale of Github, (even when it was a fledgling) requires resources and budgets that very few FOSS projects can even try for. So any replacement is essentially guaranteed to happen commercially.
The original git model enabled part of what was necessary for a fully distributed social phenomenon, but it didn't even go half way. None of the critical social aspects of Github were, are or will ever become distributed, now that a gatekeeper monopolist owns it.
If you want a true FOSS replacement, it's going to need to do at least an order of magnitude more prep work before launching. We've already seen what we get when somebody puts up a plain git server, and we've seen when a single company extends it to become social with a proprietary, non-distributed model.
A better future requires much, much more up-front work.
Well played, universe.
Of course Github using now Azure as a testbed is problematic. Since Azure is mismanaged and doomed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47616242 the problem will either be fixed or we all have to leave. I think they hired cheap staff to manually fix overprovisioned Azure boxes on demand. Maybe the morons at Azure will come to their senses one day, or not.
what a cliff hanger!
As someone with similar warm feelings for GitHub, it's kind of sad to see the fragmentation but I have similar frustrations with the recent outages. Perhaps it's time to explore the idea of unbundling the social/discovery layer from the code hosting/dev tool so we can live between the myriad git/jj hosts but still do "social coding" together.
I've never had such an obsession to a platform or an activity as this. Some might say this is unhealthy, but I admire folks who can reach this level of obsession in their craft. It's just a joy to read about for me
Large platforms like GitHub have strong security teams and fast patching, but they also concentrate risk. A single vulnerability or abuse pattern can affect a huge portion of the ecosystem.
Decentralizing critical infrastructure doesn’t eliminate risk, but it distributes it.
What It Means for Open Source, Infrastructure and Security: https://tux.re/forum/viewtopic.php?t=183
https://www.headphonesty.com/2025/07/sonos-officially-appoin...
Yes, it seemed like Microsoft had a brief interregnum period of about 10 years where they seemed to have a renaissance and a genuine culture change and a concern for quality and initiative seemed to take hold.
And for many of us who came into the industry in the 90s this was a strange period because actually post-Gates/Balmer MS suddenly seem not so bad?
But that was until the first deals with OpenAI and the first round of layoffs. After Musk's purges at Twitter, MS was the first to really join in the fray.
Since then the old MS is back. Clearly as Machiavellian as in the past. But kind of sadder and more pathetic.
But honestly I'm also a bit confused by the framing some people have this thread because I remember GitHub always having reliability issues in its early days. It and Twitter were both famous RoR projects with notorious and constant outage issues in the 2008/2009 time-frame.
So bad that if a startup had made Microsoft Teams they would've gone out of business after a year.
But the substantial improvements!!!
The existing open web hosts are just super heavy. 512 MiB minimum RAM and stuff is totally unnecessary though I have hundreds of gigabytes of the stuff. And then you need all these DSL YAMLs around and a job runner etc. I think I could probably fit the whole thing into a much smaller size. And I have kube running already so job management isn't the hardest thing in the world. Nightmare for SOC2 perhaps. I guess we'll see.
I think this is all home-forgeable now. The advantage of Github for OP was the social aspect, clearly, but I don't use it for that. And I'm a really late user 7,322,596 from 2014!
codeberg, self-hosted forgejo, gitlab, still-beta sourcehut, tangled? github was “the git community” and now it’s fracturing—you need accounts everywhere, you can’t easily discover neat projects
i like tangled if only because it’s built on atproto which emphasizes ownership and transferability of identity: something that would make the move off github so much easier
https://x.com/sagitz_/status/2049153195243372569
With malicious HTTP headers, any user could access any repo on Github.com, or on the Enterprise Github instance they might have access to. It's even worse than that because it's remote code execution on the Github server.
It seems like Github has been a mess since the Microsoft acquisition. Definitely feels like another multi billion dollar screwup in the making, like Skype or Nokia were.
Hopefully the incidents in the last few weeks are a wakeup call, and they start getting their shit together.
It is not. From the first footnote in the blog post:
> We've been discussing and putting together a plan to leave GitHub for months, and this blog post was written over a week ago. We only made the final decision this week.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
I support Forgejo and Codeberg, but it's not clear that its architecture can scale to GitHub levels.
Microsoft subsidises a lot of OSS development. Who has equally big pockets?
The other week I spent about an hour trying to figure out why my actions jobs were just stuck on waiting and not starting.
For my personal stuff, I think I'm going to migrate to either my own selfhosted instance of something like gitea or codeberg, the juice just isn't worth the squeeze anymore imo for GitHub, even with stuff like free runners and pages.
I personally think this is mainly attributed to GH Copilot and I would love to know if MS/GH even makes a profit on it.
https://thenewstack.io/github-will-prioritize-migrating-to-a... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45517173
Might explain at least a part of the issues.
Either way, the thing that irks me about the Github situation is that so many people joined Github specifically because it was "where everything was happening". And now they realize that having one place where everything is happening is not really a great situation if that place starts going south. We need a range of providers with good interop rather than centralization.
The author is entitled to his feelings. People can host their projects wherever they like. However, this is also a huge drama about basically nothing. GitHub is actually much more useful now than it was in its heyday (when it had far fewer features to go wrong).
I don’t mind the lower availability to be honest but I also noticed it.
To be fair I don’t add new code on GitHub for my own private projects anymore. Public projects of course profit from the network effect but there must be a better way. Before GitHub people also did well, Linux, many well known GNU projects etc. were created without GitHub.
Had they remained independent I have no doubt it'd be a very different story.
There is a simple cost equation of 40-100x demand vs a fixed op-ex budget for the org. Github can either 40x their paying customer fees or try to monetize all of the free vibecoder (and open source) traffic.
Over said decades I've worked on countless (open source) projects there.
Professionally? 1 project in all those years. Yes, exactly 1 (still there).
Every single other project was either in bitbucket, gitlab, gitea, forgejo or... I am sure I forgot some forge.
What I am trying to convey is: fascinating how "everything is on GitHub" is a very american way to see the world.
I must be a filthy casual because I'm sure I can count on one hand the number of times a Github outage has affected my work.
Ideally with private repos for free or a modest fee.
Gitea doesn't count because they only want to sell hosting to large organizations. The pre MS github model for private repos was just fine(tm).
(however the parallax scrolling of the background is gone, maybe when Microsoft arrived)
So in response to GitHub Issues, PRs, etc. being occasionally inaccessible each day, you're going to make them inaccessible for months?
Feels like a knee-jerk emotional decision, one that doesn't serve you, Ghostty, or the community.
At least have your backup ready to go
I’ve done it with bitbucket, how has their uptime been?
This PS is as impactful as the body of the post.
Other companies considering similar things should take note.
Related: Vibe Coding Will Break Your Company https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47930738
I'm wondering to what extent the natural life cycle of SaaS products comes down to: the company grows, the old guard with good technical taste move on, bad technical decisions are made, quality declines, users move on.
Are other people being impacted every day by github outages?
What does that look like?
I'm not saying the writer is wrong, I'm just wondering how folks who experience this every day work / how that exposure plays out / what it is.
i literally do not recall the last day that passed without someone on my team noticing that some portion of gh was degraded.
Don't want to use a service anymore? Fine, stop using it and move to something else. But why publish something that you knows for sure is just going to be bad press for another company and organization?
https://api.github.com/users/<username>
There's probably a few more to be added there now.
So they will move their CI and issue tracker somewhere else.
And this will be largely a springboard for “people are leaving the ship huh” and misc. GitHub demise discussions.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/github-ceo-developers-embrac...
It's still around. It's just called Azure DevOps now. I personally think it's great for what it does.
Too negligible a problem. Service outages are much more important issues, and much less controversial.
They've started shipping stuff again, but it's mostly not stuff I want.
Great footnote to finish the article.
Am I an agent? Are you?
Is Claude... God?
What a timeline that would be. One can dream.
Individual forges might support a few thousand users if set up professionally; codeberg etc. might give you an order or two of magnitude more. Gitlab has something like 50M users [1] but it's unclear whether that includes self-hosting, I suspect it does.
Github hit 100M users in 2023 [2] and will hit double that before long if trends continue - the figure of 180M is quoted in different places like [3] for the end of 2025.
From the same page: "Developers created more than 230 new repositories every minute, merged 43.2 million pull requests on average each month (+23% YoY), and pushed nearly 1 billion commits in 2025 (+25.1% YoY)—including a record of nearly 100 million in August alone."
At that scale, it's a miracle anything works at all to be honest, and suggests that Microsoft probably _is_ throwing some love, money, and some of the best developers at it just so the thing stays up even some of the time while they're hitting exponential growth.
The current situation sucks, but it's not evidence that Microsoft is being deliberately evil.
[1] https://about.gitlab.com/company/ [2] https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/100-million-d... [3] https://github.blog/news-insights/octoverse/octoverse-a-new-...
I also believe I can do it better if you give me the amount of money they spend and I can hire the same engineers.
It should be shockingly easy to not push crap into it so they can make it actually work.
It is evidence that they are doing a bad job, it could be because they are incompetent, evil or just have different priorities
Now, you must have a whatng cartel web engine to interact with most of the basic features.
Thx microsoft, again.
devs should start to leave microsoft github, but for a forge which respects the web (namely which has a web site, and which is not only a web app).
An Update on GitHub Availability
>i have stopped opening github, i just use github cli heavily, that's it, gh gives everything i need out of the box
on github actions run on github and agent pull them, checks the issues and fixes the code, the whole workflow changed
This hit me pretty hard. I hope GitHub finds its way sooner rather than later.
This is a 'tipping point' situation. Exodus will be a little at a time, then all at once.
Lots of big services are like this. Google Colab's 'Connect to Drive' is down as we speak. I'm up right now because I know my Runpod VM in Kentucky is going to die rather abruptly and I'll need to manually get it up.
Everything has its flaws.
Microsoft lets you host your code, websites and media for free and
They have a visual-only captcha on signup with a (extremely-badly-documented and non-obvious) workaround for accessibility, and that workaround doesn't work if you build Codeberg from source. If you look at the commit history, the frontend changes for the workaround are still there (tucked away in an unassuming refactoring commit), the backend check... isn't.
This is the one undocumented change we can clearly detect, God only knows how many more there are. For such a self-described champion of open source, such behavior should be considered unacceptable.
I'm deliberately not describing the workaround here, I suppose that the reason it's so well hidden is to prevent spammers from abusing it. As it is currently the only way to sign up for a Codeberg account with a screen reader, no matter how ineffective for most people, I'm hesitant to post more details here. All I'm going to say is that it can be found if you carefully look at the frontend code of the signup form.
I've tried reaching out to Codeberg about this (had a DM conversation on Mastodon with one of the members, but there was no further response.
Question:
So, I'm also annoyed wit GitHub's stability (especially lately), but I'm curious: Ghostty has only a handful of PRs per day (excluding robot contribs); how is this a real problem? (and yes, I read your blog article).
Response:
1) The robot contribs don't auto-close if GH is down (cause it relies on GHA). We have retries but its pretty annoying.
(2) A PR isn't one and done. We need to comment, we need to run tests (~80 per run), and we do this multiple times per commit (due to review back and forth). So one PR has a lot of GH reliance right now.
(3) PRs tend to batch up, e.g. we don't do PR review constantly because all of us have other things to do, so we usually will try to review/merge multiple at one time. 3 PRs per day = 20 per week, which is a ton for volunteer time!
(4) We try to coordinate merge parties across maintainers in China+US+EU and if GH is down during our small time slice we just can't do any meaningful merging for 24 hours. We could alter our process here but that's just gaslighting.
(5) We get an order of magnitude more issue and discussion comments, which are affected by all of the above except CI. These are particularly affected by GHA/API outages.
(6) Dev work by maintainers happens in non-PR branches that run CI, and if CI is down we can't test our code (since Ghostty relies on a lot of testing we can't run locally, e.g. for platforms we don't have). It effectively pauses work on that branch.
(7) I've had multiple days in that 30-day window where Git operations themselves failed for different reasons. So I couldn't push a branch or whatever.
It just all adds up to be WAY too work impacting. The Ghostty maintainer channel is a stream of "oh GH is down again."
We all saw this coming when the Microsoft acquisition happened. They constitutionally can’t not fuck their products up.
best dev platform
Yet again, I wish the prevailing SCMS were more like Fossil, where issues and forum posts, at least, are part of the repository (and everything lives in a single sqlite file). (Of course Fossil actively opposes "pull requests", separate issue)
Not opposition, but very little incentive for the primary developers to implement the feature. Fossil's own developers happen to be the same as SQLite's developers, which doesn't accept outside contribution as a policy. It results in Fossil's features being predominantly, but not exclusively, the same features needed for SQLite and little else.
This thread discusses avenues for implementation: https://fossil-scm.org/forum/forumpost/ce238fccfd6b124d
I mean, why wouldn't you want to consolidate git repos, a heroku/fly.io/vercel like container system and direct access to web-based coding tools. They have the coding models and agents, slap a web interface over Claude Code running in a container, allow for commits and deploys. Control the entire stack.
People uploading more code doesn’t necessitate switching to Microsoft Azure backend, and doing other inane things that only benefit Microsoft.
It doesn't work if it doesn't work.
If it’s free - you are the product.
fwiw - i do keep a fair amount of code in my computer. i don't push everything..
I'm GitHub user 191,754 (2010). Wow...
- Mr. Anderson
Mitchell said on X if he was in charge, he would shut down copilot completely. It might bring in revenue but without core GitHub, Copilot also goes to zero and he’s totally right about this.
It makes absolutely no sense for Microslop to have Copilot when they have such a huge stake in OpenAI and they have Codex. The price hikes for copilot tokens and the massive backlash proves this is not a good business model. Just shut it down and get back to fundamentals.
AI is a cancer and it slowly hollows out everything it touches. Corporate greed is merely an accelerant.
You might say “it’s merely a tool”, but it’s impossible for me to divorce the realities of the terrible harm these generative AI tools are doing to the world and it’s immensely selfish to be like “well it generates slop code for me good enough so I don’t care about all the other bad stuff”. So I just suffer in silence at work because I’m forced to use AI to generate code even though I probably spend more time just reprompting then I would just writing things by hand.
The worst thing is needing to babysit third world contractors they gave a Claude subscription to - the worst slop I have ever seen. Give me a meatsack junior right out of college with no AI over this garbage any day of the week.
And if that wasn’t bad enough - we had to fire our lead CSM the other day because he secretly reverse engineered our private API with Claude and built something that he put unauthenticated on the public internet that leaked a bunch of customer data. Absolute nightmare dealing with the fallout of this that didn’t need to happen. And if that wasn’t bad enough he tried to extort money from us because the thing he built was supposed to replace one of our vendors. This was by-far the worst case of AI psychosis induced Dunning-Krueger I have ever seen. He’s actually going to try to sue the company now for wrongful termination! I bet Claude told him he was absolutey right!
It’s not like I can just find another job either, the market is sh*t and everything else is forcing these tools anyway. So yeah, thank you SV for destroying the tech labour market, suppressing wages, and making the already deteriorating state of software quality even worse.
Frankly, the ROI of these tools is murky at best and it’s gonna get worse as they raise prices. I don’t see what benefit they actually bring beyond a hit of dopamine when it near-shots a task. I have yet to see any killer app that feels truely like AI is doing something worthwhile. And all the startups I see that are AI first are just selling AI orchestration to other AI startups. BORING. They tried making an AI MySpace and it was a disaster, so what CAN these things actually do?
OpenClaw is supposed to be some revolutionary thing but nobody actually does anything truely novel with it. Oh it aggregates your news for you? Congratulations I have an app that already does that without AI and it doesn’t cost me per token.
It's targeted from the beginning to the masses.
It's used for non-technical people too; for documentation, dashboards, and bug tracking.
Viewing all this data is far easier in a GUI than a TUI.