241–250 of 594 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not seeing racism. Again, just seeing white men not treated as the default standard, and white people here seeing that as racism.
Here's an easy test to see if such statements are racist. Swap "white" for any other race. If it sounds like racism, then the original statement is by necessity also racist.
For instance, many ethnic jokes (racist jokes) only work because they exploit racial stereotypes. Those jokes cease to work when you swap in a different race. Does that mean the original jokes were not racist? Of course it doesn't.
Saying "there are too many white guys in the senate" is not racist, because the US senate is disproportionately white. Saying "there are too many black guys in the senate" on the other hand is racist, because there are only 2 of them!
Saying "there are too many white guys in tech" isn't racist for the same reason, and actions to diversify tech are not racist against white people either. Conversely, preserving the white-dominated status quo is racist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the migration easier because it's just a git repo? I'm curious how GitHub's software platform specifically facilitates easy migration.
The git repo itself is trivial to migrate (you already have a full copy, just push it somewhere else). The problems are issues, code comments, pull request discussions, etc, which may be harder, and their API helps here.
It's a few years now I can not see Github focused, from the external POV at least, to provide good coder tools. All the new things only marginally improve on what we used to have. I would worry more about that than about the losses themselves, since I feel the losses mostly reflect the fact the company has no clear direction so is spending money on workforce in the hope to have larger effects. Perhaps they don't need…
That said, I feel for the engineering staff that has to deal with the availability requirements and the DDoS events. Those folks are heroes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they can't stand on their own feet, I imagine somebody would/will buy GitHub at a firesale rather than see it disappear completely. For all their missteps, they have developer mindshare that is the envy of everyone. If we're lucky it would be someone like Google or Microsoft, if we're unlucky it might be Oracle or SalesForce. Whoever it would end up being though, GitHub won't just vanish.
Ignoring the fact that the VCs want to get paid and GitHub's employees want to keep working, how big of a skeleton crew would it take to keep a site like GitHub running in "maintenance" mode?
Maintaining the app and not moving forward with new features and adding value (because of lack of resources), I would assume it would just die eventually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe gitlab's UI has gotten better lastly. Nevertheless, if 99% of the value provided by github comes from their interface, should we remember how much time they needed to implement the "+1" counters on messages?
Their UI/UX is still nowhere comparable to GitHub's. GitHub is so much simpler to use that GitLab and everyone I talk to seems to have the same opinion. GitLab is still lagging far behind when it comes to user experience, it's just not easy to find stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps you live in a world different from mine, but what you describe as "cartoonishly foolish" behavior I consider completely standard. Customers refuse to spend 5000 to make 20.000 all the time, or they're willing to waste weeks finding a different vendor that can offer the same for 3000. Others are willing to walk away from a great deal unless they get a discount, but are content with a tiny discount. Because a d…
Too true. I had a potential client who had already spent months and a bunch of money on external consultants regarding an intermittent identity management integration issue. They heard about me through word-of-mouth. I offered a fixed-price "no win, no fee" rate equal to about a week of my normal hourly rate. I thought it was a great deal given how much they'd already spent, plus it gave some certainty to them around…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, but I didn't make that assertion, so you appear to be strawmanning.
The way you phrased your question made it sound like you were snarkily implying that, yes. If that's not what you were doing, ignore my comment and move on.
The snark you are inferring is completely imagined. Your original comment is also flamebaiting by adding a complete strawman that is also ideological. Please cease politicizing this discussion.
This is an example of how VCs distort the market for other businesses. I had a recent conversation with a prospect and they took issue with the price of our software. Our app is in a specialized industry (ie. a smaller market). We charge a per use fee of $35. This fee enables our customer to immediately earn nearly $200 (a 5x return with no risk to them). Despite the significant benefit and profitability of using the…