Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

blog.gitbutler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 785 posts

Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

#171

Post by internet_points »

patates wrote: post #159
fxtentacle wrote: post #15

I feel like I really need to learn how to raise money. For $17M, one could probably build a vacuum robot prototype that’ll also clean up all of the kids toys and sort LEGO bricks by colour and size. Parents worldwide would love it. But instead, we get a replacement for Git. And I didn’t even bother to click the link because I’m fine with how Git works. On the list of pain points in my life, “what comes after Git” has…

Not to shoot down your comment with sarcasm, I'm being really honest: I changed my shower gel with an expensive one this week, and it really had an unexpected, exciting effect. Small stuff can really have consequences much bigger than themselves. That said, if you ever decide solve the tidying the toys problem, start a kickstarter, I pledge to pledge support! :D

i may be dense or something but what effect?

Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

#172

Post by globular-toast »

pu_pe wrote: post #93

I actually believe we need to rethink Git for modern needs. Saving prompts and sessions alongside commits could become the norm for example, or I could imagine having different flags for whether a contribution was created by a human or not. This doesn't seem to be the direction these guys are going though, it looks like they think Git should be more social or something.

What do people expect to do with these saved prompts/contexts? Nobody is going to read through them, right? I suppose the thinking is LLMs will, but any decently active codebase will soon contain far too much context for any current LLM. Is this the same thinking behind cryonics, ie. we may be able to use this stuff one day so let's start saving it now? Hoarding has ruined many people and it will ruin us all if we're not careful...

Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

#173

Post by debarshri »

pjerem wrote: post #123
debarshri wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thing i learned about raising capital it, you need to build or have a network. Thats YC is great, accelerators, incubators help you do that. Network and story you tell. Also, every stage you raise, you have to make sure the folks you raise from help you craft the narrative for thr next round. I think if you have a healthy busy growing well, you shouldnt raise unless you have ambition and urge to go faster. Irony of t…

> I think if you have a healthy busy growing well, you shouldnt raise unless you have ambition and urge to go faster. My previous employer was like this. A 20yo company with a nice always increasing ytoy growth. The CEO told for 20 years that he would never raise any money. It was an incredible place to work : nice compensation, product and consumer centered, we had time and means to do the right things. Until the CE…

VC by default are founder friendly in my experience.

If you find a greedy VC then most likely they are real VC and often gets attracted when your business is not doing great.

Reputation travels in this industry therefore people care.

Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

#174

Post by farouqjalabi »

tmountain wrote: post #125

I personally feel that: 1) Git is fine 2) I would not want to replace critical open source tooling with something backed by investor capital from its inception. Sure, it will be “open source “, but with people throwing money behind it, there’s a plan to extract value from the user base from day one. I’m tired of being “the product”. Critical open source tooltips by should spring from the community, not from corporate…

Gitbutler is backed by git. Gitbutler is essentially just ui for git which also allows you to have multiple branches. It isn't meant to replace git.

Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

#175

Post by aorloff »

caycep wrote: post #101
fxtentacle wrote: post #15

I feel like I really need to learn how to raise money. For $17M, one could probably build a vacuum robot prototype that’ll also clean up all of the kids toys and sort LEGO bricks by colour and size. Parents worldwide would love it. But instead, we get a replacement for Git. And I didn’t even bother to click the link because I’m fine with how Git works. On the list of pain points in my life, “what comes after Git” has…

granted how much did Linus spend on Git? probably well south of $17M and he's not beholden to the likes of a16z

at the time he was probably thinking about how much time it would _save_ him

Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

#178

Post by faangguyindia »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #27

Why are investors still investing in SAAS products like this? I've heard some investors made rather blunt statements about such investments being a very hard sell to them at this point. Clearly somebody believes differently here. We have AI now. AI tools are pretty handy with Git. I've not manually resolved git conflicts in months now. That's more or less a solved problem for me. Mostly codex creates and manages pull…

Many investment decisions are taken by people who get cut of investment as fees.

Wealthy people don't have time to do all due diligence and vetting specially when random startups become unicorn.

Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git

#180

Post by a-french-anon »

IshKebab wrote: post #163
tmountain wrote: post #125

I personally feel that: 1) Git is fine 2) I would not want to replace critical open source tooling with something backed by investor capital from its inception. Sure, it will be “open source “, but with people throwing money behind it, there’s a plan to extract value from the user base from day one. I’m tired of being “the product”. Critical open source tooltips by should spring from the community, not from corporate…

Git is fine. I would like something better than fine though, especially for dealing with rebase/merge conflicts where I would say Git is mediocre.

Well, yeah, but Git is basically UNIX/POSIX or JPEG. Good enough to always win against better like Plan 9 or JPEG XL (though I think this one may win in the long term).
Post reply on HN