GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016 • Hacker News Board

Re: GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016

#561

Post by duiker101 » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 1:35 PM UTC

Sacho wrote: post #548

Sacho wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We use visual studio team services(previously visual studio online) for all our projects. The main pro is integration with all other MS stuff(something you expect as a MS-based dev). MS has also been working hard into making it usable with a Git repository instead of TFVC, in fact, there's a lot of features and workflows that only work with Git - e.g. branch for work item, pull requests, etc(I'm debating switching fr…

I can't edit my comment, so here's some screenshots to demonstrate what I mean: The main discussion point in a work item: https://www.visualstudio.com/en-us/docs/work/backlogs/add-wo... Hyperlinking: https://www.visualstudio.com/en-us/docs/work/backlogs/add-wo... Example of a discussion in pull requests: https://www.visualstudio.com/en-us/docs/work/productivity/pr...

Thank you very much! Very insightful

Re: GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016

#562

Post by h1d » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 5:22 PM UTC

qbaqbaqba wrote: post #549

zigzigzag wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SourceForge wasn't spammy from day one. I remember it back in the first year or so of its existence. It was actually really good, and an absolute revolution for the open source community as no such sites had existed prior to that. It immediately gained massive traction and was every bit as central to the open source/free software community as github is today.

SourceForge has a new owner trying hard to bring it back to life.

> trying hard to bring it back

Any source or info on this?

Re: GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016

#563

Post by h1d » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 5:46 PM UTC

Corrado wrote: post #546

nunez wrote: post #205

SIX HUNDRED EMPLOYEES?! I don't care how advanced GitHub is; that is an INSANE number of employees for this kind of business!

You do realize how much engineering goes into Github, right? I can't even imagine the number of DDoS they have to deal with on a weekly basis. Not to mention all the hardware they have to move around; any system with that many hard drives has got to be extremely dynamic.

50 people seem enough to deal with them full time no?

Re: GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016

#564

Post by h1d » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 5:49 PM UTC

bootload wrote: post #557

acd10j wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Github Open source Hosting should be supported by donation model like Wikipedia. Where people and organisations who host code can donate in the foundation. This will remove major threat from it's existence. I would surely donate.

"Github Open source Hosting should be supported by donation model like Wikipedia." That's why I asked the Q. Seems strange that large FOSS projects are hosted but no effort by github made to get some return.

Everyone flocking to use GitHub, is the return.

Re: GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016

#565

Post by h1d » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 5:55 PM UTC

pep_guardiola wrote: post #24

please guys get your shit together. I guess I would be able to figure out an alternative but a big chunk of my life as a programmer is centered around Github. It would be a major let down to see them perish.

Maybe someone said that about SourceForge 10 years ago.

Re: GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016

#566

Post by h1d » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 5:57 PM UTC

galfarragem wrote: post #425

Github is too good to fail IMHO: if they raise a bit their prices, all their paying costumers will still stay and their money problems will mitigate. By the other hand, Atom is clearly a long term loser and they should let it go. Their contribution to the text editing world was terrific but now they should focus where they are the best.

Atom lose against which ones?

Re: GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016

#567

Post by pryelluw » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 8:49 PM UTC

josho wrote: post #526

pryelluw wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need two more price options. One for a little less and one for significantly more. Say $29, $35, and $99. Remove / add something to the other prices. People just want options. Give them some. Oh, and provide a 10% discount of they buy the $99 version NOW. Offer ends soon. ;)

Good point, I never thought of applying that technique here, it always struck me as a no brainer decision. The reality is you need to hear a few objections to start understanding the mind of the prospect and how to counter their objections.

Do understand that when people object to price they are mostly ready to buy. By providing them with more than one pricing option you can get around the obstacle. The issue lies in making it expensive enough so that you dont get annoying cheap users. Make sure to remove support from the lowest priced option. :)

Email me if you want help on this. No BS or strings. Check profile.

Re: GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016

#568

Post by jolux » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 9:26 PM UTC

flukus wrote: post #547

jolux wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a radical departure at all. It's right there in the Agile Manifesto, for chrissakes.

That's not what they meant in the Agile manifesto. They just meant they don't want to get bogged down by process instead of publishing something useful to users.

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools? That sounds pretty people-first to me.

Re: GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016

#569

Post by jolux » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 9:27 PM UTC

flukus wrote: post #543

jolux wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just like I don't care about the politics of any other service I use, as long as it doesn't interfere with my using it. So I'll ask again. How, concretely, do Coraline's politics interfere with your current usage of GitHub?

They don't interfere with my current usage. I'm concerned it will interfere with my future usage and I'm taking steps to ensure that doesn't happen.

>I'm concerned it will interfere with my future usage and I'm taking steps to ensure that doesn't happen.

And how do you know Coraline wasn't interacting in the same vein?

Re: GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016

#570

Post by jolux » Sat, Dec 17, 2016, 9:31 PM UTC

flukus wrote: post #544

camgunz wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you argue for the "absence of politics", you're actually arguing for the "default politics we've had for generations", which is heteronormative, euro-centric, etc. The "absence of politics" leads to widespread usage of anti-LGBT, anti-women, and anti-minority slurs and policies that disadvantage those groups by not recognizing their institutional disadvantage.

Without getting into details, I completely disagree. Being apolitical is not supporting "default politics". I support LGBT rights and equality for all, but this is the sort of BS that is making me and many others switch political allegiances.

But you're not apolitical. You're calling a transgender Ruby programmer a bully for asking if a maintainer on a project's harmful opinions about trans people reflected that project's opinions about trans people, and the reply was that their shitty opinions were comparable to somebody not liking candy. There's no bullying going on there.

>I support LGBT rights and equality for all, but this is the sort of BS that is making me and many others switch political allegiances.

I appreciate that you can say that, but honestly if stuff as minor as an uncomfortable conversation on GitHub is causing you to switch political allegiance (to whom/what exactly, might I ask?) you might reconsider whose side you were on in the first place.