Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | jeltz's commentslogin

Every great journey must have an end. As far as I understand Cirrus CI was struggling due to Github Actions eating their market. Cirrus CI was in my opinion much better than Github Actions but it is hard to compete with a bundled solution.

What was good about it? It looks pretty ordinary to me: https://cirrus-ci.org/features/

It gives a better docker based experience and it also has measurements of memory and cpu usage to help you dimension things quickly.

Much better UX for viewing logs, more supported platforms. Github Actions in particular is also very unstable.

Cuirrus does not do AI, they do CI.

There is a theme in a lot of products (and open source projects) of plastering AI all over the description, even if it isn't really related to AI. The first thing I see on the CirrusLabs website is "Accelerate AI Adoption Without Compromising Safety". How am I supposed to know this is a CI product, and even if I figure that out, how am I supposed to know it is a genral CI tool and not something AI specific?

I don't understand why these sites just put a bunch of buzzwords instead of telling you what it actually is.


You are checking the wrong Cirrus Labs.

Better UX than their competitors and support for many different images.

What software do you use to run your CI?

Not OP, but to me the answer is:

  - gitea
  - woodpecker CI
  - my own docker registry
  - portainer running on my docker swarm

I then define the docker stack in the git repository, and CI builds the images and pushes to build the new image to the docker repository. The portainer API allows to deploy a stack, with the image tag as a parameter.

not op either, github actions, self hosted runner on bare metal with lxc containers for each runner.

Cost savings are insane and the speed of latest amd epycs are miles ahead of the default ci instances on github and other places.


Are your self-hosted runner on premise or are you using a cloud service for it?

Some people have been saying that but indeed not OP. I personally think it is both:

1. Microsoft have negligently and/or maliciously created a process which fucks people over

2. That maliciousness is not directed at Wireguard or VeraCrypt.


Apparently not ones interested in what EFF is writing.

Unfortunately it’s gone the way of the ACLU, and instead of fighting for their original cause they’ve become legal brownshirts for the far left. I know lots of folks who were big on the EFF but even my Trump disliking libertarian friends have had an EFF falling out.

They probably get more engagement at those platforms. Quality is often more important than quantity when it comes to impressions.

Even the posts which had to do with technology were flagged so it definitely felt more like Elon bots or Elon fanboys than something organic.

Not really, their target audience is much more likely to hang out on Mastodon and Bluesky. So even if the impressions might be fewer the quality of them is almost certainly higher.

Fair, their post gave a nod to the believers I suppose, and it's reasonable to assume they have different metrics of success for getting the message out to believers vs as they described "The people who need us most are often the ones most embedded in the walled gardens of the mainstream platforms and subjected to their corporate surveillance. Young people, people of color, queer folks, activists, and organizers..."

Having said that, I'd argue that X meets the definition of "walled gardens of the mainstream platforms and subjected to their corporate surveillance."

But, it feels like based on this comment, they should still be on X "We stay because the people on those platforms deserve access to information, too. We stay because some of our most-read posts are the ones criticizing the very platform we're posting on. We stay because the fewer steps between you and the resources you need to protect yourself, the better. "

And view counts aren't available on most platforms, but on tiktok, where they are, they seem to have about 60k plays or whatever in the past 6 months. So, I'm not sure how you can argue that X is de minimus, but, gotta be on tiktok for reasons, that also apply to X, but, X is de minimus and tiktok is not, even though we get many more views on X.

Anyhow, with this response I've spent 10 more minutes thinking about this than I should, I will leave it here with the closing thought that their post feels very disingenuous.


The few people who were not terminally online left Twitter around the time it was renamed.

The most terminally online people left Twitter for BlueSky.

*Normal people who don’t want to hang around in a Nazi hellhole

*Normal people who don’t want to hang around in a Commie hellhole

Even if that was true, like so what? Why would anyone care? They are happier over there, so?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: