[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.