He makes some decent points about Github's response to their reliability issues, but that's about where it ends. This rant can be summed up as: Github is unreliable and they should work on this, pushing free users to the back burner in favor of their paying clients. Whether or not you agree with that, the rant was a bit unnecessary.
It did seem needlessly harsh. Github responded pretty well to the recent issues though.
Seems like the author just wanted to blame Github for all their problems as opposed to considering that basis of the internet is itself unreliable, factored that in, and handled it gracefully. But maybe I'm being too harsh >_>.
How would they do that though? If you look at the details of what cause the outage, it was not a matter of free vs. paid users. Even if they added extra redundancy for paid users that they didn't give free users, that wouldn't do any good in the case of a site-wide failure, which is what they had.
For that matter, I don't think they've ever had an issue that could be isolated to affect only free users, have they?
For Outage #3 they said "After inspecting the HTTP logs, we identified a Yahoo! spider that was making thousands of requests but never waiting for responses." Spidering isn't an issue for the paid private repos since they have nothing public to index. However, the web access to private repos went down due to the spidering of the free user pages.
