Any thoughts on what to extent GitHub is subsidizing OSS development with its CI?

This feels like one of the big issues that OSS projects might face when migrating to an alternative.

What might a less GitHub centric CI ecosystem look like for OSS community?

Small to mid sized OSS projects benefit heavily from this. There is a size beyond which the free runner sizes become insufficient, but the assumption is that some form of monetization is figured out by that time. For example, we have a lot of OSS projects using WarpBuild because performance and fast CI is important for productivity.

Without GitHub's free CI for public repos, the small projects and indies will get hit the hardest imo.

However, I do not know hard numbers to quantify the impact.

Runner price based on CPU/memory and time makes sense, since those are the costs associated with executing runners.

The costs for GitHub doing action workflows (excluding running) is less related to job duration.

The most charitable interpretation is that per-minute pricing is easier to understand, especially if you already pay runners per minute.

The less charitable interpretation is that they charge that because they can, as they have the mindshare and network effect to keep you from changing.

This was probably the question to ask before declaring it all as junk.

I see their repo[0] mentions transitioning to the Pinenote. I'd like to run an ordinary distribution on my Pinenote.

Does anyone know what the mainline support is like nowadays, and whether widely packaged software can make it usable as an ebook reader?

0. https://github.com/Quill-OS/quill

The kernel has mainline support, but it looks a fork is used by most images.

https://git.sr.ht/~hrdl/linux/log/v6.17-rc5_pinenote has many commits.