[mechanical_fish]

Moreover: Nothing comes without cost. If you want a service like GitHub but with higher reliability, you are going to pay. Possibly in money, possibly in ease of use, possibly in the time it takes to identify such a service (it's really hard to gather reliable uptime data, especially in a field that is constantly evolving).

And, all things being equal, I'm not anxious to pay more money for a more reliable Github. Because it's git, people. Why pay for five nines of uptime when you can just mirror your repo? Every five minutes, if you like? With a one-line cron task? One of git's most basic functions is to make an efficient mirror of itself.

[vulf]

Indeed, GitHub's terms even state "GitHub does not warrant that ... (ii) the service will be uninterrupted..."

If uptime was a serious factor for you, you'd probably pay for an SLA to ensure uptime and compensation for downtime... and a SLA wouldn't be cheap.

[vidarh]

One of our customers wanted an SLA with more teeth. They themselves with a straight face proposed an SLA that would give them ca 8 GBP in credit against hosting fees per day of downtime. This is a multi-million pound business. We said yes, of course.

We'd happily negotiate something with real teeth, as I'm sure most service providers would, and I'm sure Github would too if a big customer pushed for it.

But you're 100% right - if we did it'd be expensive, because we'd have to turn right around and insure ourselves against the risks incurred if the amounts were remotely serious, and we'd pass that insurance cost straight on.

[sunchild]

Also, just about every SLA is pure window dressing. I know this because IAAL.