Is their uptime acceptable? No. But personal attacks aren’t necessary or constructive.
Core parts of the product, like navigating to individual files in a code review, are broken
I think this is a good argument to underline "It's not _just_ the scale". Adding to this, the Github Code Review experience is kind-of broken, the way comments/threads are stacked in the PR overview has not improved, pagination isn't really a thing, and these issues are age old. Hopefully, one day, Github will mature.
The final step is challenging; likely the most difficult part is changing all the code references and imports. Shadowing changes would be straightforward. Training your likely 25-50 engineers to use the new code review UX would likely not take that long.
Considering the wasted engineering velocity during Github outages, it's worthwhile to do even a partial migration. Github's action runners have in my experience, been the most fragile part of the platform. Given the ease of moving build and merge queue runners to alternates, it's a no-brainer.
Of course you may not want to manage the hardware yourself in which case you'd go for a dedicated server from a reputable provider (i.e. not microsoft/google) like OVH's RISE-XL, Hetzner's EX131, Scaleway's Core-9-L (or an equivalent solution from a smaller provider) for about 4000€/year.
Now let's say you add 8k€/year donations to your distro of choice, forge of choice, and other FLOSS projects and 8k€/year for backups. You got the whole thing running sustainably with >99.9% uptime for 20k€/year or 20% of the original bill.
Personally, all AI has done is add another layer of abstraction where “pseudo code” can be the source input and out comes the compiled program. You still need to think about the design and maintenance.
Can you comment on that?