⠵⠻⠷⠕⠭ 🍥🍉⚪🌹
Alex KretzschmarBrutal.
When Microsoft acquired GitHub.
Alfred J. Kwak (audiokontor) ☕@ironicbadger lessons learned? stay away from VC...grow organically and listen/follow your users demands ;)
Tor Lillqvist@mc @ironicbadger Are you suggesting that Microsoft is "VC"? Isn't it the opposite, GitHub was initially funded by VC, then Microsoft bought it and the VC funders got their payout?
Alistair BuxtonNo they are suggesting that VC shareholders forced the sale to Microsoft. Same as Twitter VC shareholders forced the sale to Musk, even though literally nobody but them wanted it to happen.
Nil@ali1234 @tml @mc @ironicbadger I just read "VC" and thought "Why would someone arrive to the conclusion that they must stay away from Version Control"
... So carry on!
Lett Osprey 
🍉 
@capita_picat A fine example of "why write all the words out fully", I was getting kinda upset as to why they felt I should stop using git. I wonder how many did the exact same :O
@ali1234 @tml @mc @ironicbadger
@ali1234 @tml @mc @ironicbadger
@ali1234 @mc @ironicbadger So if the VC shareholders had not done that, but GH was still owned by VCs, it would be good?
@mc As the context is GitHub, I spent a bit too long time figuring out that this was venture capital, not version control. "How is this a lesson that I should stay away from version control???" I'll keep using forgejo, thankyouverymuch!"
Jason Tubnor 🇦🇺@ironicbadger and still no #IPv6
Andrew@Tubsta @ironicbadger iirc they were like halfway through rolling it out when Microsoft bought them lmao
Miyuru Sankalpa@Tubsta Yep still 0% uptime from my IPv6 only server point of view.
The Orange Theme
Cap Ybarra@ironicbadger as a post msft acquisition survivor this tracks
The Doctor
Arapalla
AmgineAzure.
Ashwin DixitAzure?
If you bought MSFT 5 years ago, you would be "as you were" ( and a bit of a loser ).
https://g.co/finance/MSFT:NASDAQ?window=1Y
Check out these other losers:
https://www.google.com/finance/portfolio/413d47c7-2932-4196-8b7b-3d073a637f14
Acorn SquashbucklerA graph demonstrating that the GitHub website's uptime suffered considerably after being acquired by Microsoft.
The graph shows average uptime of the website by-month from April 2016 to January 2026. Months that earn 100% are colored green, while months that miss that goal are colored either red or yellow, depending on some undisclosed metric of severity.
A line is marked in November 2018 where Microsoft acquired GitHub. Before that, no months were visibly worse than 100%. There's one red dot, but it's not visibly different otherwise. For the first year after the acquisition uptime is worse but acceptable, and stays above 99.95%: six out of 12 months earn 100%.
After October 2019 the story flips completely. Only one month has earned 100% uptime since then, and the remaining months vary wildly from 99.98% to about 99.70%. May 2023 was the worst, crashing almost as low as 99.5% uptime.
Honestly, it looks like a seismograph that's started recording an active earthquake.
Cassandrich@AcornSquashbuckler @ironicbadger When did they Rewrite It In React? 🤔 🤡
jmelesky@ironicbadger Geez, this is like what happened when they first tried to convert Hotmail to run on Windows servers.
aerique@jmelesky @ironicbadger That was fun.
crispy branzino ☭ (sold out forever)@ironicbadger no fair. Oracle would have done it much faster but Redmond beat them to it :/
itgrrl 
@ironicbadger big oof (for smallish values of oof) but I’d also like to see that graphed against active usage volume to get the full picture
(yes, regardless, a “hyperscaler” should be able to handle the volume)
Dave Wilburn Why settle for Five Nines of reliability when you can get Nine Fives?
Kaito@DaveMWilburn @ironicbadger get the sweet 55.5555555% availability
Oliver D. Reithmaier
Pietervdvn 
@DaveMWilburn @ironicbadger 9.9999% is also five nines
Ari [APz] Sovijärvi@DaveMWilburn @ironicbadger Those are rookie numbers. Always aim for 1!
Just BobThat is the least of the problems with it, got that damn AI stealing everyones hard work
Andy McKay 🇨🇦@ironicbadger hmm, quite a few opinions on that chart 😀 tl;dr it’s complicated.
Most of GitHub services, until I left a couple of years ago were not on Azure.
aburka 🫣@andymckay @ironicbadger what's complicated about it? it used to be good and now it's bad
@aburka @ironicbadger ah I was replying to a different post about it being Azure or Azure management. I did Mastodon wrong, sorry.
I will say after the acquisition when GitHub became rapidly more complex as features were added, the definition of downtime requiring a status change became a lot more strict and focused (for some teams). A bit more loose and easy beforehand.
@andymckay @ironicbadger yeah I can believe there are many causes, mismanagement and forced development speed as much as technology changes
Harris Lapiroff@andymckay @aburka @ironicbadger The change here is so stark that I did wonder if this actually reflected a policy change on how downtime is tracked.
@harris @aburka @ironicbadger yes that’s one of the factors.
Status is an indicator controlled by the company. As GitHub sold more into businesses and became more crucial to them eg: Actions part of deployments - uptime became more critical and monitored more.
In Actions we built lots of sensitive metrics and quickly became more and more transparent about downtime, customers noticed it.
@harris @aburka @ironicbadger status was also one metric for all of GitHub, it was split into 6 or more around the time Actions was coming out. So more granularity too.
Surprised copilot isn’t on the status page yet.
Orion Ussner kidder@ironicbadger Acquire and ruin. This is the corporate way.
@ironicbadger Just like when they bought Hotmail back in the day.
deadbeef lives@ironicbadger Where was this chart published?
@a_different_jlh https://damrnelson.github.io/github-historical-uptime/
Sorry I should have linked to the source
maarten brouwers@ironicbadger @a_different_jlh when did they really start measuring though, the source of the graph also shows data before the invention of even git itself: https://www.githubstatus.com/uptime?page=200
@murb @ironicbadger The historical lookup seems to load a page for any value in the URL, but the backwards button stops working after page 40, so it looks like the earliest data provided via that portal are from July 2016
@murb @ironicbadger There is some discussion of data validity (including the author's perspective) in this reddit thread https://old.reddit.com/r/github/comments/1rnvhs9/githubs_historic_downtime_scraped_and_plotted/
@a_different_jlh @ironicbadger ah good point. I was just modifying URL params, I'd expected a 404 with no info available.
llewelly@ironicbadger behold the jagged teeth of the dog that eat all the dogfood!
Jourei@ironicbadger Could anyone explain to me, how is this possible?
I would imagine they would keep things running on the original hardware etc. which I wouldn't expect to fluctuate like this.
I would imagine they would keep things running on the original hardware etc. which I wouldn't expect to fluctuate like this.
Marius Gedminas@Jourei @ironicbadger Move fast and break things!
Christoph Petrausch@Jourei AFAIK they started to use Azure more and more. That would explain the initial stability after the buy event. Also they might have shifted from stability to ship feature after feature. Before Microsoft bought them, their feature set was rather stable.
Mu-An@Jourei @ironicbadger No, when MSFT came in they tried to change everything at once. If anything services fee can be paid back into MSFT pipelines instead of other service providers, they wanted it yesterday. They brought in more than 1000 people, which was more than all of GitHub at the time, to dilute the original teams.
derptron@Jourei @ironicbadger "restructuring"
They fired huge chunks of the existing staff and terrified the rest.
deefdragon@Jourei @ironicbadger Yeah, this is likely just a bad graph. Before vs after the change was likely a change in either the definition of, or the measuring of "down time", and the two end up not comparable.
I suspect the data went from tracking as "most/key things working=up" to "anything not working=not up"
thunfisch@ironicbadger @isotopp what’s the data source behind it? Official status page? Because that has been notoriously inaccurate long before microslop took over.
Alex Kretzschmar (@[email protected])
@[email protected] https://damrnelson.github.io/github-historical-uptime/ Sorry I should have linked to the source
@ironicbadger @isotopp Thanks! So it is indeed the data from the official status page. Yes, since microslop took over reliability has gotten even worse, but it was bad before as well. They just often did not mark the services as down on the status page, even though they were.
So, the general conclusion here is still correct, but the data for the visualization is not reliable IMO.
Martin Vermeer FCD@ironicbadger The inverse Midas touch
Ingo Schildmann@ironicbadger searching for "github downtime 2016" I don't trust the old values