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

281–290 of 785 posts

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

#281

Post by DrScientist »

debarshri wrote: post #173
pjerem wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> VC by default are founder friendly in my experience.

Founders are only one stakeholder. There are employees ( I think they fall into that category ), customers, suppliers, and the wider society.

It all comes back to why does the company exist - and for which stakeholders. I think that's the point the original author is making.

I don't buy the argument that making money in the end is a perfect surrogate for overall good - it's not - it's an imperfect surrogate - and to pretend it is a perfect surrogate is just an excuse to behave like an arsehole.

To make that concrete, let's say you are a chemical company making paints - really important job, paints are needed the cheaper you can make them, the more people can have them etc, but if you knowingly pollute a local river just because you can get away with it and increase your profits - saying that increased profits justifies polluting the river based on the assumption that river pollution is correctly priced ( free ) is an obvious convenient excuse to be a selfish arsehole.

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

#282

Post by amoss »

imdsm wrote: post #270
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…

I feel exactly this way Why are we trying to replace git? What is the problem with git?

It's the old broken. Clearly it must be replaced with the new hotness.

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

#283

Post by mxkopy »

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…

Solutions to more actual problems are more expensive. It’s easier to ask millions of people for $0.01 than it is to ask thousands for $100. Things that are easy to sell to millions of people for $100 are rarely innovative (transportation, food, entertainment, etc), and if they are, they’re world-changing (cars, supermarkets, smartphones, etc).

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

#284

Post by amoss »

fontain wrote: post #46
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…

The author is a founder of GitHub, he could raise $17m for “git but it’s called pit and a repository is a hole and committing code is called burying it” if he wanted to, investors care about pedigree.

I would use this tool. Ship it

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

#286

Post by murukesh_s »

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…

>Scott Chacon is a co-founder of GitHub

Thought so until saw this. Man, he is the co-founder of Github and already seed-funded. How can someone refuse him? 17M is a small amount considering the valuation VS Code Agent wrappers are getting

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

#287

Post by ngc248 »

bee_rider wrote: post #26
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…

I like git, it works perfectly fine on my command line. I do wonder, though, if it would have been designed differently if the whole “code forge” sort of application (or whatever GitHub and the like are called) was envisioned at the time. Pull requests aren’t even a concept in git proper, right? It seems like a kind of important type of tool. Even though git is awesome, we don’t need a monoculture.

"Pull requests" are part of git though since it was originally a DCVS it meant you would pull from an individuals git repo ... services like github etc centralized the concept

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

#288

Post by weedhopper »

k4rli wrote: post #204
IshKebab wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What about a vibecoded replacement with emojis and javascript? Surely $trillion "ai" thing can generate a better solution than one Finnish guy 20 years ago.

Rust! it’s written in rust and not javascript!!!!

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

#289

Post by drcongo »

mi_lk wrote: post #164
justincormack wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its VC funded https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2076429/000207642925...

that's a company built on top of Jujutsu, not jj itself

If I remember correctly, jj is one guy who works at Google. Which presents a separate worry, which is that one day, when jj gets popular enough, Google will consume it, make it shit, change the name of it every six months and then shut it down.
Post reply on HN