To me this correlates more to them being bought by Microsoft, a company known for being seemingly incapable of creating quality software to the point that it's not even funny anymore, and also known for sloppifying all the products they touch.
I have an Ops background and I strongly suspect they were given a stupid timeline for the Azure migration.
I've got to believe Microsoft have decent Ops people but the management wanted to move faster than was reasonable and screwed it up. Move one thing at a time and double check it all works and you can do a migration like this.
I always figured these problems were directly related to the migration.
* There's a huge disconnect between the actual product and what was sold to the buyer. It could be that the product was a borderline fraud, or it could be that the product was actually much better quality than the expectation on the buyer's side, but the buyer isn't interested in most of the product.
* Fear spreads in the acquired company that their product will be discontinued or reshaped into something else.
* The pay is good, probably much better than before the company was bought.
* Many internal teams end up lacking real purpose and try to insert themselves into every new internal project only to obfuscate their irrelevance.
This leads to some pathological developments, where the teams previously working on acquired products start doing a lot of useless, for-show work. Internal initiatives sprout like mushrooms after a summer rain, but they are all plagued by very broad (and mostly irrelevant) team involvement, duplication of existing products / services, and fear of being discovered. And while there are plenty of such initiatives, their role is to be a superficial distraction. In reality, everyone is afraid to touch the old code or do any sensible integration because it could lead to blanket firing of a lot of people. The middle-management behavior becomes a sort of exchange of favors, where everyone is afraid that the other can blackmail them into losing their job, and so everyone is trying to be extra nice by offering a slice of a pie to another manager.
What this leads to, in reality, is insane inertia (often despite highly shortened software release cycles), astronomic amounts of unmitigated tech. debt, opacity in communication with management, persecution of those who genuinely want to improve the system.
Based on this, my prediction is that Github will not survive. Just like Skype didn't. Somehow or other, Microsoft will find a way to replace the product with... MS Outlook with a new skin.
Seems pretty conclusive. Very similar story when they bought skype.
It got worse around April/May this year, while that graph stops at February.
I'm sorry but this made me laugh out loud. That isn't true at all, this has been going on for years. This conversation[0] from six years ago has discussion about the outages starting to become much more frequent in December 2019. It has never gotten better in that time, it's just continually degraded.
Most people work around it by self-hosting github (which has other problems but uptime aint one).
If you want to have a horrible time, try reading some of the runner code. It's early 2010s-style Windows-First, MSFT C# crud that has trouble not racing several threads to inconclusive status codes.
Its common knowledge that Win11 needs 32gb RAM, but im glad to hear that Microsoft is aware of it.
Looking forward to this 8gb variant :)
So they will make Windows run on 8GB because people can't purchase cheap RAM anymore, and they want to stop people migrating to Linux.
This is not directly caused by AI slop, only indirectly through RAM prices.