An update from GitHub: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/159123#discussioncomment-13148279
The rates are here: https://docs.github.com/en/rest/using-the-rest-api/rate-limits-for-the-rest-api?apiVersion=2022-11-28
- 60 req/hour for unauthenticated users
- 5000 req/hour for authenticated - personal
- 15000 req/hour for authenticated - enterprise org
Github is owned by Microsoft, so don’t worry, it’s going to get worse
Wow so surprising, never saw this coming, this is my surprised face. :-l
Its always blocked me from searching in firefox when I’m logged out for some reason.
60 req/hour for unauthenticated users
That’s low enough that it may cause problems for a lot of infrastructure. Like, I’m pretty sure that the MELPA emacs package repository builds out of git, and a lot of that is on github.
I didn’t think of that - also for nvim you typically pull plugins from git repositories
Do you think any infrastructure is pulling that often while unauthenticated? It seems like an easy fix either way (in my admittedly non devops opinion)
It’s gonna be problematic in particular for organisations with larger offices. If you’ve got hundreds of devs/sysadmins under the same public IP address, those 60 requests/hour are shared between them.
Basically, I expect unauthenticated pulls to not anymore be possible at my day job, which means repos hosted on GitHub become a pain.
Ah yeah that’s right, I didn’t consider large offices. I can definitely see how that’d be a problem
Quite frankly, companies shouldn’t be pulling Willy nilly from github or npm, etc anyway. It’s trivial to set up something to cache repos or artifacts, etc. Plus it guards against being down when github is down, etc.
It’s easy to set up a cache, but what’s hard is convincing your devs to use it.
Mainly because, well, it generally works without configuring the cache in your build pipeline, as you’ll almost always need some solution for accessing the internet anyways.
But there’s other reasons, too. You need authentication or a VPN for accessing a cache like that. Authentications means you have to deal with credentials, which is a pain. VPN means it’s likely slower than downloading directly from the internet, at least while you’re working from home.
Well, and it’s also just yet another moving part in your build pipeline. If that cache is ever down or broken or inaccessible from certain build infrastructure, chances are it will get removed from affected build pipelines and those devs are unlikely to come back.
Having said that, of course, GitHub is promoting caches quite heavily here. This might make it actually worth using for the individual devs.
Same problem for CGNAT users
If I’m using Ansible or something to pull images it might get that high.
Of course the fix is to pull it once and copy the files over, but I could see this breaking prod for folks who didn’t write it that way in the first place
That’s low enough that it may cause problems for a lot of infrastructure.
Likely the point. If you need more, get an API key.
Or just make authenticated requests. I’d expect that to be well within with capabilities of anyone using MELPA, and 5000 requests per hour shouldn’t pose any difficulty considering MELPA only has about 6000 total packages.
This is my opinion on it, too. Everyone is crying about the death of Github when they’re just cutting back on unauthenticated requests to curb abuse… lol seems pretty standard practice to me.
RIP yocto builds
Good thing I moved all my repos from git[lab|hub] to Codeberg recently.
did your project manager or client ask for you to move there?
That’ just how the cookie crumbles.
Probably getting hammered by ai scrapers
Everything seems to be. There was a period where you could kinda have a sane experience browsing over a VPN or otherwise using a cloud service IP range endpoint but especially the past 6 months or so things have gotten worse exponentially by the week. Everything is moving behind cloudflare or other systems
The funny thing is that rate limits won’t help them with genai scrapers
you mean, doin’ what microsoft and their ai ‘partners’ do to others?
Yeah but they’re allowed to do it because they have brazillions of dollars.
They literally own GitHub. Brazillions well spent.
I see the “just create an account” and “just login” crowd have joined the discussion. Some people will defend a monopolist no matter what. If github introduced ID checks à la Google or required a Microsoft account to login, they’d just shrug and go “create a Microsoft account then, stop bitching”. They don’t realise they are being boiled and don’t care. Consoomer behaviour.
Or we just realize that GitHub without logging in is a service we are getting for free. And when there’s something free, there’s someone trying to exploit it. Using GitHub while logged in is also free and has none of these limits, while allowing them to much easier block exploiters.
I would like to remind you that you are arguing for a monopolist. I’d agree with you if it were for a startup or mid-sized company that had lots of competition and was providing a good product being abused by competitors or users. But Github has a quasi-monopoly, is owned by a monopolist that is part of the reason other websites are being bombarded by requests (aka, they are part of the problem), and you are sitting here arguing that more people should join the monopoly because of an issue they created.
Can you see the flaws in reasoning in your statements?
No. I cannot find the flaws in my reasoning. Because you are not attacking my reasoning, you are saying that i am on the side of the bad people, and the bad people are bad, and you are opposed to the bad people, therefore you are right.
The world is more than black or white. GitHub rate-limiting non-logged-in users makes sense, and is the expected result in the age of web scrapping LLM training.
Yes, the parent company of GitHub also does web scrapped for the purpose of training LLMs. I don’t see what that has to do with defending themselves from other scrappers.
Company creates problem. Requires users to change because of created problem. You defend company creating problem.
That’s the logical flaw.
If you see no flaws in defending a monopolist, well, you cannot be helped then.
I don’t think Microsoft invented scrapping. Or LLM training.
Also, GitHub doesn’t have an issue with Microsoft scraping its data. They can just directly access whatever data they want. And rate-limiting non logged in accounts won’t affect Microsoft’s LLM training at all.
I’m not defending a monopolist because of monopolist actions. First of all because GitHub doesn’t have any kind of monopoly. There are plenty of git forges. And second of all. How does this make their position on the market stronger? If anything, it makes it weaker.
This going to fuck over obtanium?
is authenticated like when you use a private key with git clone? stupid question i know
also this might be terrible if you subscribe to filter lists on raw github in ublock or adguard
is authenticated like when you use a private key with git clone
Yes
also this might be terrible if you subscribe to filter lists on raw github in ublock or adguard
Yes exactly why this is actually quite problematic. There’s a lot of HTTPS Git pull remotes around and random software that uses raw.githubusercontent.com to fetch data. All of that is now subject to the 60 req/hr limit and not all of it will be easy to fix.
Just browsing GitHub I’ve got this limit
i’ve hit it many times so far… even as quick as the second page view (first internal link clicked) after more than a day or two since the last visit (yes, even with cleaned browser data or private window).
it’s fucking stupid how quick they are to throw up a roadblock.
Just browse authenticated, you won’t have that issue.
that is not an acceptable ‘solution’ and opens up an entirely different and more significant can o’ worms instead.
Then login.
Maybe charge OpenAI for scrapes instead of screwing over your actual customers.
Codeberg has used way stricter rate limiting since pretty much forever. Nice thought, but Codeberg will not solve this problem, like at all.
What? I have never seen a rate limiting screen on codeberg. Ever. If I click too much on github I get rate limited. It happens so frequently, I use https://sourcegraph.com/search when I have to navigate a repository’s code.
Open source repositories should rely on p2p. Torrenting repos is the way I think.
Not only for this. At any point m$ could take down your repo if they or their investors don’t like it.
I wonder if it would already exist and if it could work with git?
I’ve been reading about it. But at some point I found that the parent organization run a crypto scam. Supposedly is not embedded into the protocol but they also said that the token is used to give rewards withing the protocol. That just made me wary of them.
Though the protocol did seen interesting. It’s MIT licensed I think so I suppose it could just be forked into something crypto free.
There’s nothing crypto in the radicle protocol. What I think you’re referring to are “drips” which uses crypto to fund opensource development (I know how terrible). It’s its own protocol built on top of ethereum and is not built into the radicle protocol.
This comes up every time someone mentions radicle and I think it happens because there’s a RAD crypto token and a radicle protocol. Beyond the similar names, it’s like mistaking bees for wasps because they look similar and not bothering to have a closer look.
Drips are funding the development of gitoxide, BTW, which is a Rust reimplementation of git. I wouldn’t start getting suspicious of gitoxide sneaking in a crypto protocol just because it’s funded by crypto. If we attacked everything funded by the things we consider evil, well everything opensource made by GAFAM would have to go: modern video streaming (HLS by Apple), Android (bought by Google), LSPs (popularised and developed by Microsoft), OBS (sponsored by Google through YouTube and by Amazon through Twitch), and much much more.
The thing is that the purpose of such a system is to run away from enshitificacion.
If they are so crypto adjacent is like a enshitificacion speedrun.
If I’m going to stay in a platform that just care for the money I might as well stay in corpo platforms. I’m not going to the trouble of changing platform and using new systems to keep getting being used so others can enrich.
Git itself doesn’t have crypto around it. This shouldn’t have either.
And this is not even against crypto as a concept, which is fine by me. It’s against using crypto as a scam to get a quick buck out of people who doesn’t know better.
If I’m going to stay in a platform that just care for the money
Where are you getting this information from? How is radicle just caring about money?
I’m not going to the trouble of changing platform and using new systems to keep getting being used so others can enrich.
Who is getting rich and how?
Answer to both questions is the crypto scheme they have created. There is no logical explanation to it. We have seen it happen countless times before.
They could ask for crypto donations and that would be totally fine. But they are building a crypto scheme. And crypto schemes are build as pyramid schemes to get money out of vulnerable people. Anyone who make such a thing is not trustable.
Who is building a cryptoscheme? Radicle developers aren’t building a cryptoscheme. Again, radicle is not crypto, it’s a decentralised git forge.
Git is p2p and distributed from day 1. Github is just a convenient website. If Microsoft takes down your repo, just upload to another system. Nothing but convenience will be lost.
Look into https://radicle.xyz/
Not entirely true. You lose tickets and PRs in that scenario.
I’ve heard git-bug a few times for decentralised issue tracking, never tried it but the idea is interesting
Yeah, pretty neat!
Torrenting doesn’t deal well with updating files.
And you have another problem: how do you handle bad actors spamming the download ?
That’s probably why github does that.That’s true. I didn’t think of that.
IPFS supposedly works fine with updating shares. But I don’t want to get closer to that project as they had fallen into cryptoscam territory.
I’m currently reading about “radicle” let’s see what the propose.
I don’t get the bad actors spamming the download. Like downloading too much? Torrent leechers?
EDIT: Just finished by search sbout radicle. They of course have relations with a cryptomscam. Obviously… ;_; why this keep happening?
There’s literally nothing about crypto in radicle from my reading, cryptography and crypto currency are not synonymous.
Ah because they also have a different project for a crypto payment platform for funding open source development.
Edit again: it seems pretty nifty actually, why do you think it’s a scam? Just because crypto?
The project’s official repo should probably exist in a single location so that there is an authoritative version. At that point p2p is only necessary if traffic for the source code is getting too expensive for the project.
Personally I think the source hut model is closest to the ideal set up for OSS projects. Though I use Codeberg for my personal stuff because I’m cheap and lazy
I’m wary of external dependencies. They are cool now, but will they be cool in the future? Will they even exist?
One thing I think p2p excels is resiliance. People be still using eDonkey even if it’s abandoned.
A repo signature should deal with “fake copies”. It’s true we have the problem that BitTorrent protocol is not though for updating files, so a different protocol would be needed. I don’t even know how possible/practical it is. It’s true that any big project should probably host their own remote repo, and copy it on other platforms as needed. Github only repos was always a dangerous practice.
If you’re able to easily migrate issues etc to a new instance, then you don’t need to worry about a particular service providers getting shitty. At which point your main concern is temporary outages.
Perhaps this is more of a concern for some projects (e.g. anything that angers Nintendo’s lawyers). But for most, I imagine that the added complexity of distributed p2p hosting would outweigh the upsides.
Not saying it’s a bad idea, in fact I like it a lot, but I can see why it’s not a high priority for most OSS devs
It’s true we have the problem that BitTorrent protocol is not though for updating files
Bittorrent v2 has updatable torrents
