> the Bay Area tradition that treated computers not as office appliances but as tools for thought, instruments of liberation

Missed a great chance to use the "bicycle for our minds" Steve Jobs quote (one of my favorite since it resonates so clearly with me)

https://youtu.be/ob_GX50Za6c?t=79

> So I’m actually fine with the proposed change since it also gives me the power as a customer to say “hey, I’m paying for this, fix it.”

I’m paying for GitHub Action now and there is zero recourse (other than leaving). Giving them money doesn’t change anything.

I’d be more willing to pay if GH Actions wasn’t so flakey and frustrating (for hosted or self-hosted runners, I use both). At least self-hosted runners are way cheaper _and_ have better performance.

> I’d be more willing to pay if GH Actions wasn’t so flakey and frustrating (for hosted or self-hosted runners, I use both).

This is indeed a reason I do consider leaving GHA. The underinvestment into this part of the product shows. But they also did announce quite some investment into new and (for us relevant) features alongside the pricing change, so I'll have a look at how this changes with some sorely needed work on the product.

This is a hilariously naive take.

If you’ve actually tried this, and actually read the results, you’d know this does not work well. It might write a few decent tests but get ready for an impressive number of tests and cases but no real coverage.

I did this literally 2 days ago and it churned for a while and spit out hundreds of tests! Great news right? Well, no, they did stupid things like “Create an instance of the class (new MyClass), now make sure it’s the right class type”. It also created multiple tests that created maps then asserted the values existed and matched… matched the maps it created in the test… without ever touching the underlying code it was supposed to be testing.

I’ve tested this on new codebases, old codebases, and vibe coded codebases, the results vary slightly and you absolutely can use LLMs to help with writing tests, no doubt, but “Just throw an agent at it” does not work.

This highlights something that I wish was more prevalent, Path Coverage. I'm not sure of what testing suites handle path coverage, but I know XDebug for PHP could manage it back when I was doing PHP work. Simple line coverage doesn't tell you enough of the story while path coverage should let you be sure you've tested all code paths of a unit. Mix that with input fuzzing and you should be able to develop comprehensive unit tests for critical units in your codebase. Yes, I'm aware that's just one part of a large puzzle.

I can assure you WarpBuild has Mac runners that work very well. When I first switched GH only offered 1 Mac runner and it was horribly slow. Literally cut my build times in half by changing 1 line in my workflow file to use the WB runner.

Nowadays GH has more sizes by WB continues to beat them in price and performance.

It’s highway robbery what GH charges for the crap they provide. I can highly recommend WarpBuild for Mac (and Linux) runners.

I was talking specifically of macOS Intel runners. The sibling comment from the founder confirmed they don't have them.

I find that page incredibly hard to read. I cannot fathom why someone would lecture others about UI/UX and do it using that as the UI/UX.

Are modals/dialogs perfect? Absolutely not but completely eschewing them is also a mistake. In all things, moderation.

> staggered rollout

It's too bad no OpenAI Engineers (or Marketers?) know that term exists. /s

I do not understand why it's so hard for them to just tell the truth. So many announcements "Available today for Plus/Pro/etc" really means "Sometime this week at best, maybe multiple weeks". I'm not asking for them to roll out faster, just communicate better.

Ahh, so since GitHub is completely incompetent when it comes to managing a CI they are going to make it worse for everyone to get their cut.

I hate GH Action runners with a passion. They are slow, overpriced, and clearly held together with duct tape and chewing gum. WarpBuild, on the other hand, was a breeze to setup and provided faster runners and lower prices.

This is a really shitty move.

Hey GitHub, your Microsoft is showing...

I have never been a fan of GitHub and their entire system, always felt Bitbucket or GitLab were superior in terms of the tooling and included features across all plans.

However, my experience with GitHub Actions was really poor. Some build that would run perfectly on my local machine and any other servers we have hosted would always time out on GitHub runners. I went back and forth from small runners to large runners and the result was always the same. Then I found that there are third-party companies just offering replacement runners for GitHub Actions at less than half the price for an amazing reliability and cost. It was a night and day difference.

Now... this move by GitHub is almost unbelievable. Charging folks to use their own machines

Hey - thanks for the WarpBuild love!

Given github ran 11.5 billion mins of actions in 2025, and most of them would've been on self-hosted runners, this move makes some sense from their POV.

However, this is still an... interesting... move, especially after bitbucket got all that hate a few weeks ago for doing something similar.

Nothing irks me quite as much as "Did you use ChatGPT/AI on this?" or assumptions that it was used.

Just the other week a client reached out and asked a bunch of questions that resulted in me writing 15+ SQL queries (not small/basic ones) from scratch and then doing some more math/calculations on top of that to get the client the numbers they were looking for. After spending an hour or two on it and writing up my response they said something to the effect up "Thanks for that! I hope AI made it easy to get that all together!".

I'm sure they were mostly being nice and trying (badly) to say "I hope it wasn't too much trouble" but it took me a few iterations to put together a reply that wasn't confrontational. No, I didn't use AI, mostly because they absolutely suck at that kind of thing. Oh, they might spit of convincing SQL statements, those SQL statements might even work and return data, but the chance they got the right numbers is very low in my experience (yes, I've tried).

The nuance in a database schema, especially one that's been around for a while and seen its share of additions/migrations/etc, is something LLMs do not handle well. Sure, if you want a count of users an LLM can probably do that, but anything more complicated that I've tried falls over very quickly.

The whole ordeal frustrated me quite a bit because it trivialized and minimized what was real work that I did (non-billed work, trying to be nice). I wouldn't do this because I'm a professional but there was a moment when I thought "Next time I'll just reply with AI Slop instead and let them sort it out". It really took the wind out of my sails and made me regret the effort I put into getting them the data they asked for.

This is hard, because on one hand I do love self-hosting (I self-host a number of the services they list in their "App Store") but I don't quite get the target market for this (probably because I'm not in it).

The lack of RAID or similar means that you've traded the cloud for 1 component losing all your data. Coupled with the lack of any (obvious) backup solution is concerning. Do you really want to backup your files/images to a single point of failure? If this is supposed to be turn-key then I think there are opportunities to sell cloud backup as an add-on but as-is you are handing people a ticking time bomb.

I'm not a fan of the Crypto angle highlighted in the store, it's a red flag.

I'm interested in what the app compatibility story is here. Like how much post-install configuration are they handling?

> Sonarr on umbrelOS will automatically connect to download clients installed from the Umbrel App Store. Choose from Transmission, qBittorerent, and SABnzbd. Simply install your preferred client(s).

Does that mean they have post-install hooks (on both Sonarr and the download client's end) to configure those? Or is that just speak for "Yeah, you can easily configure XYZ download client that you also installed".

All-in-all it seems overpriced and limited for what it's offering and that's all assuming they stick around and don't peter out. Maybe this is a good first step for someone interested in this but I feel like the type of person interested in this either already can figure out how to set it up themselves (Synology, UnRaid, Docker, etc) or will need a lot of handholding when things break/don't work as expected.

It's entirely possible that there are a lot of people that this would be good for, I just don't know who it would be.

Lastly, no mention of anything like SSO or Remote Access (both things that could be a good value-add IMHO alongside cloud backup). It's overly nerdy in some ways and underly nerdy in others which is why I can't figure out the target audience.