This was my first startup idea, and the first one we executed on: an open-source CI that runs on your machine exactly like it does in the cloud and doesn’t use YAML as the main configuration format.
Others have tried the same, including Cicada, which was built by the same folks as Fig.
Here are the failure modes for this idea:
- CI succeeds most of the time. It’s only in the minority of cases that running CI locally is useful, as you don’t need to debug that often.
- The only case where CI fails more often is when building pipelines. If you’re building pipelines then GitHub actions already has bazillions of actions and recipes available. Their “whole product” is a huge advantage (shout-out to readers of Crossing the Chasm).
- The friction to adopt GHA is much smaller as it’s one click away on GitHub and all your other stuff is already there.
- Making an MVP of CI is really difficult because it requires lots of features. You can’t even start if you don’t have things like permissions, outputs for different workflows, and a significant amount of infra for orchestration.
- Even when you have an MVP the switching costs of CI are ridiculously high, and it’s a critical piece of infrastructure, so it’s difficult to get people to move over if you’re only offering marginal gains.
- GitHub is owned by Microsoft, which owns Azure. Their compute will be way cheaper 99% of the time. Your product advantage must be significant enough to justify higher costs. In any case, their margin will be ridiculously higher.
It’s funny how many people get to the same conclusion, yet this is a really difficult problem to solve.
TL;DR: the author idea is great and many people thought about it before. Executing such an idea is extremely difficult though.
> GitHub is owned by Microsoft, which owns Azure. Their compute will be way cheaper 99% of the time.
I hope that regulators in Europe will start to notice and respond to these monopolistic practices of IaaS players who unfairly compete on the managed services market by providing services below cost. Previously, such actions were taken against e.g. Microsoft to ensure that Windows licenses are offered on equal terms to all cloud providers (without preferences for Azure).
> - GitHub is owned by Microsoft, which owns Azure. Their compute will be way cheaper 99% of the time. Your product advantage must be significant enough to justify higher costs.
This definitely isn't true. GitHub Actions are extremely expensive for compute.
Others have tried the same, including Cicada, which was built by the same folks as Fig.
Here are the failure modes for this idea:
- CI succeeds most of the time. It’s only in the minority of cases that running CI locally is useful, as you don’t need to debug that often.
- The only case where CI fails more often is when building pipelines. If you’re building pipelines then GitHub actions already has bazillions of actions and recipes available. Their “whole product” is a huge advantage (shout-out to readers of Crossing the Chasm).
- The friction to adopt GHA is much smaller as it’s one click away on GitHub and all your other stuff is already there.
- Making an MVP of CI is really difficult because it requires lots of features. You can’t even start if you don’t have things like permissions, outputs for different workflows, and a significant amount of infra for orchestration.
- Even when you have an MVP the switching costs of CI are ridiculously high, and it’s a critical piece of infrastructure, so it’s difficult to get people to move over if you’re only offering marginal gains.
- GitHub is owned by Microsoft, which owns Azure. Their compute will be way cheaper 99% of the time. Your product advantage must be significant enough to justify higher costs. In any case, their margin will be ridiculously higher.
It’s funny how many people get to the same conclusion, yet this is a really difficult problem to solve.
TL;DR: the author idea is great and many people thought about it before. Executing such an idea is extremely difficult though.