This happens every other week. Does it really need to be posted on Hacker News every time? If you happen to be using Github at the time of the outage, you're going to notice. If you don't happen to be using Github at that time then it doesn't affect you.
This doesn't qualify for the news part of Hacker News.
I wonder how many people who use Github as part of their deployment work flow are impacted by outages like this. I know git is distributed, but I can imagine people with scripts that default to pulling from a github.com origin having to scramble to reconfigure.
This is exactly why we have an internal system which mirrors repos. We've never had our build/deploy process interrupted by GitHub outages because we always use the internal mirror.
We already have redundancy - since git is distributed, Github going down does not impact our development or deployment.
Github provides a great user experience for discussion and managing branches/pull requests. Issue tracking is usable enough that some companies find it sufficient.
The cost is literally unnoticeable for pretty much any company.
"Many" service outages is an exaggeration, I think. It's just selection bias - if you don't use github, and the only time you hear about it is when they get attacked, you'll have an impression that they are under constant attack.
For the companies I have worked at, in short, there was no downside, and decent upside to using it.
1) Developer Familiarity
2) They have one of the first (and best) pull request workflows and people again are familiar with it.
3) They are a big name that you can be sure wont be going anywhere anytime soon
4) For a business spending a little extra to not have the headache of managing it yourself is worth it
That all being said I use CodeBaseHQ for my company's repos as they have a better model of projects with repos in them than just repos.
It's not about git, it's about the addons. The inline code review is amazing. Issue tracker is decent, and with things like huboard easily sufficient for project management. Email notifications are useful, the ability to work from anywhere as long as you have your ssh key invaluable.
The downtimes are... regrettble. But our company moved to github a while ago, and everyone is mostly happy.
There are a lot of companies out there who do not have a system administrator capable of setting up or maintaining (the latter is more difficult and time consuming) its own server. GitHub is a solution to that and is quite cheap.
1. Boredom
2. Infamy (although nobody seems to claim responsibility for attacks like this so not sure how that can be a motivating factor - but who knows).
[+] [-] bratsche|12 years ago|reply
This doesn't qualify for the news part of Hacker News.
[+] [-] dkoch|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wldlyinaccurate|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theboss|12 years ago|reply
It seems expensive and they have many service outages from DDoS attacks.
It seems like someone could set up their 10 different git servers for a fraction of the price and have greater up-time due to redundancy.
And securing your own isn't rocket science either...
What am I not seeing that is the big draw to github?
[+] [-] aeontech|12 years ago|reply
Github provides a great user experience for discussion and managing branches/pull requests. Issue tracking is usable enough that some companies find it sufficient.
The cost is literally unnoticeable for pretty much any company.
"Many" service outages is an exaggeration, I think. It's just selection bias - if you don't use github, and the only time you hear about it is when they get attacked, you'll have an impression that they are under constant attack.
For the companies I have worked at, in short, there was no downside, and decent upside to using it.
[+] [-] tomschlick|12 years ago|reply
That all being said I use CodeBaseHQ for my company's repos as they have a better model of projects with repos in them than just repos.
[+] [-] Anderkent|12 years ago|reply
The downtimes are... regrettble. But our company moved to github a while ago, and everyone is mostly happy.
[+] [-] selectnull|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Doublon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mkrecny|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitdiffusion|12 years ago|reply
1. Boredom 2. Infamy (although nobody seems to claim responsibility for attacks like this so not sure how that can be a motivating factor - but who knows).
[+] [-] timmorgan|12 years ago|reply