What I don't understand from the blog post is what's different in this offering than github - is it just the agentic tie ins where I can ask my agent to make changes while browsing the PR?
Are there any fundamental differences, ie ways of working that solve the worktrees problem?
We wanted to release a beta so people could start experimenting with our scalability and extensibility themselves. Over the next few weeks, you can expect a handful of features starting to change source control to better understand and work with agents.
Are there any plans for compatibility with GitHub's APIs?
I have a lot of dev tooling which assumes code is stored on public GitHub and/or GitHubEnterprise. This produces some degree of lock-in, in that all that code would have to be rewritten to migrate to something else. (Yes, AIs can help, but they still don't make migration effortless.)
The major Git hosters tend to implement roughly the same concepts, albeit with lots of little variations. It would be great if there were some sort of standardised API everyone implemented. In the absence of that, it makes sense for people to emulate the incumbent's APIs as a de facto standard, just like how other vendors copy OpenAI's APIs for talking to LLMs.
It seems to have 2 way sync of PRs, issues, issue comments etc, so it must be pretty much the same data model, so they could probably have a compatible API.
are they? given this has been happening frequently over past year and there's been minimal clear communication on their end on how they plan to address this
Azure is at capacity; GH offers a lot of services for free or heavily discounted. Especially when its public repo. These aren't profit generating for Microsoft, so they are not the priority with the capacity Azure has available. GH is probably struggling with these capacity and budget constraints. They also still have some AWS and non-azure DCs in use.
Once Azure's massive spend is online things will slowly get better.
I think GH/Microsoft got caught by surprise to the huge usage number increase as a result of LLMs. Microsoft started rolling all of its DCs to OpenAI around 2019-2020 to begin LLM training, then we saw a huge GH increase in late 2024 and Azure was just out of capacity for infinite GH scale.
There isn't and if there is it probably doesn't matter in GH's case. People are just speculating with zero knowledge.
I'd never put my data on anything owned by Musk. Period. I'd take lower availability from GitHub or a worse alternative (feature-wise) than move Origin.
The idea is that it's like Github but it stays up even as your commit/CI frequency increases. As a customer I'm stoked and looking forward to fully switching over as that's exactly what I want.
What's the biggest differentiator to GitHub (other than uptime). I keep hearing something along the lines of "GitHub for Agents" but would be great to hear from the devs of Origin what they actually think it means in tangible features/functionality?
Today, very little. We're intentionally releasing this as a Github alternative where we meet them toe-to-toe on functionality.
Over the next few weeks you can expect a lot more from us on integrations with agents, understanding agent-written code (without having to read through all of the code), and automatically getting your PRs to a mergable state. Stay tuned :)
Probably the ever-increasing corporate homogenization, sanitization, and empty words that are flooding the internet (only accelerated by LLMs, of course). Which, for readers playing along at home, is kind of antithetical to the "hacker spirit."
Just downvote and flag and move on. "Who hurt you" just encourages bad actors to behave worse (and isn't particularly good for itself). Repeatedly flag-killing their comments tends to teach a better lesson about what conduct is acceptable.
Would love if you focus on performance. A big reason I have to have custom software is that agents can act much faster than humans but SaaS software is usually not well-designed enough to handle high RPS so rate-limits are low. I can easily outperform commercial hosts myself. At the least, it would be sick to have separate tenancy so that I could absolutely slam my own instance without having to deal with some other chump complaining.
This is really interesting to me as someone who has always cared more about performance/responsiveness than most people (and the market).
I'm sure folks would be interested to hear about what types of SaaS you've replaced for perf reasons, especially if you'd be willing to go back to a paid SaaS offering that was very responsive with agent-scale rate limits.
Of course I have the personal software etc. but this is work stuff. Agents can create granular tasks and interact through my KB/task system so that they can own subsystems (this is useful for context isolation and performance). Commercial SaaS just get overwhelmed by this. Even hobbyists usually take the Open Office approach to copying a large amount of features and then don’t deliver performance improvements.
If I’m being honest, I would gladly switch to a full SaaS solution except all of them get rate-limited on things a single 5950x can handle. It’s less a money issue (I pay for Slack etc.) and more that their use-case appears to be people who work slowly but my use-case is machines which work frequently.
I fully expect Mitchell Hashimoto will deliver some kind of high performance software factory machine and I will gladly simply pay for that.
Completely unrelated to Origin, but are there plans for closer integration of Graphite with Cursor? A combined product would be a very compelling product, but not much seems to have changed since the acquisition.
are you maybe also planning to do cross device/cloud realtime sync like a mutagen feature set kind of? so cloud and local agents can work faster together?
this could be helpful on larger cross platform products/repos (maybe too overfitted on my use case, since i am working across multiple devices (ssh works but the repo code sync is a bit of an overhead with multiple agents and devices that could be better))
what does it mean that Origin was built for the era that code moves faster than infrastructure can handle? Is it just clickbait, or there's something fundamentally different about Origin?
With that argument, 50% of IT sector businesses "steal data", especially before GDPR. When it comes to Grok, it was a debug feature forgotten on, so it wasn't even on purpose.
He’s trying to do his job and the angry mob predictably came in to bully an easy target about unrelated things. Just take a look at some of the (thankfully flagged, mostly) responses.
I'm going through and flagging the guideline-breaking comments (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49348639) - I'd encourage you to do that, too, to help preserve the quality of HN.
Thanks, every Musk-related thread on HN is like this, it's very tiresome. We get it, the man is controversial but I'm not on HN to read reddit-like kneejerk comments, I want to read insightful and technical ones.
We don't get to use technology for technologies sake, and pretend it doesn't have social and political consequences or connections. Musk touched a lot of lives when he ransacked the federal government. A LOT of lives. Expecting people forget that because of some SaaS dev tools, or even a new EV, is a lot to ask.
Seeing the low-effort Reddit-tier snipes on every single post remotely related to him is tiring. I don't think it's a lot to ask of the supposedly intelligent, logical HN crowd to keep the outrage limited to posts that specifically discuss those topics.
Have you never heard the expression don’t feed the trolls? If you actually have a problem with the tone and not just the content, ignore them and move on
I hope you don't actually believe that USAID helped lives, it's literally a propaganda arm of the government directly intervening in the politics of other countries and being a covert operation for murder and financing dictatorships. That Americans think that sacking it costs "millions of African's lives" is the pinnacle of comedy.
Lancet is run by left-wing academic ideologues who do not practice medicine clinically, the publication advanced untested theories as policy during COVID and then recommended exceptions for BLM protesting.
> We don't get to use technology for technologies sake, and pretend it doesn't have social and political consequences or connections.
Nobody is """pretending""" that in this thread.
The reality that is being asserted is that (1) politics doesn't have to be on-topic for every forum, (2) it's very explicitly not the focus of HN, and (3) even if it were on-topic the guidelines are very clear about ways to engage in a civil fashion and a very large number of comments on Musk-related posts are extremely clearly not doing this and breaking the guidelines.
Hence, downvoting and flagging are the correct things to do.
> politics doesn't have to be on-topic for every forum
The idea that you could separate “politics” from a topic as broad as technology is almost laughable. Yes, this is a bad place to discuss election outcomes and candidate nominations. But tech and its social implications are wrapped up in ways that can’t be separated.
A quick skim of your comment history shows you’re very happy to wade into politics, so I feel this is a bad-faith admonishment that attempts to point at guidelines to discourage opinions you disagree with.
Can you please not cross into personal attack? You're right, of course, that technology and politics cannot be separated, and your point about (I'm paraphrasing here) horse-race politics being off topic is well taken. But the last bit was over the line, and not necessary to make your substantive point.
Point your ire towards actual decision makers and leaders who aren't making themselves available for questions. Trying to gotcha a IC who is bound by non disparagement clauses and risks loss of employment for speaking out over the decisions of those far above him is ridiculous.
you are asking a presumably IC or IC-ish worker on decisions that are out of their control or things that should be directed to sales people or the legal people
we all have worked on software. we all know we aren't exactly the best people to point to ToS or how decisions are made higher up from us
I think there are a large number of people I’d trust with my code before Musk, and some of them are already running public Git repo hosting.
xAI was caught uploading any repo their coding agent touched to their storage only last month. This isn’t about Musk’s ideology: it’s about his trustworthiness. He sincerely believes he’s the only person who can save the world and that allows him to justify an awful lot of moral lapses.
What kind of enforceable guarantees could we actually get that xAI won't use our private code for training? Not empty promises, guarantees that have legal teeth. This applies to anything with xAI or Cursor though, especially after last months' revelation that Cursor was uploading every repo it touched.
Not in the same way really. There aren't examples of OpenAI, Anthropic, or GitHub/Microsoft doing the sketchy things that xAI has been involved with. Those companies care a lot about the reputational damage that would come from flouting their customer's data privacy obligations.
Cursor/xAI was making a full copy of every repo it ever touched within the last month, and when caught, just acted like that was an accident. A system to download every repo you touch, and then upload it to persistent cloud storage, doesn't just happen by accident.
Unless you are an enterprise no one will be offering you such a guarantee. Even with the enterprise the bar has gone down a lot on expectations and compliance, every one is carrying/buying the SOC2 compliance certification these days.
Happy to answer any questions about Origin or source control in general!