The Pulse: is GitHub still best for AI-native development?
Poor availability has dogged GitHub for months and raises questions about its status and focus. Plus, Microsoft promises Windows will not be “Microslop”, a massive LLM supply chain attack, and more
The Pulse is a series covering events, insights, and trends within Big Tech and startups. Notice an interesting event or trend? Hit reply and share it with me.
Today, we cover:
Does GitHub still merit “top git platform for AI-native development” status? Availability has dropped to one nine (~90% – !!), partly due to not being able to handle increased traffic from AI coding agents. There’s also no CEO and an apparent lack of direction.
Should a tool auto-add itself as a contributor to PRs? Claude Code and GitHub Copilot auto-add themselves to commits, which is effectively free advertising. Codex and OpenCode purposely do not.
Microsoft promises Windows will not be “Microslop.” After years of forced Copilot integrations, Start menu ads, and mandatory Microsoft accounts, the Windows team is promising to undo the self-inflicted damage done to the OS. It’s better late than never, but why did Microsoft allow the “Microslop” perception to stick around so long?
Industry pulse. Massive LLM supply chain attack via LiteLLM, backlash after Cursor forgets to mention that Composer 2 is based on an open source model, what happens when you stop reviewing AI code, OpenAI kills Sora, and more.
1. Does GitHub still merit “top git platform for AI-native development” status?
We’re used to highly reliable systems which target four-nines of availability (99.99%, meaning about 52 minutes of downtime per year), and for it to be embarrassing to barely hit three nines (around 9 hours of downtime per year.) And yet, in the past month, GitHub’s reliability is down to one nine!
Here’s data from the third-party, “missing GitHub status page”, which was built after GitHub stopped updating its own status page due to terrible availability. Recently, things have looked poor: