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

421–430 of 785 posts

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

#421

Post by znnajdla »

repelsteeltje wrote: post #214
znnajdla wrote: post #191

I continue to be amazed at American capital allocation. $17M for an idea to improve Git? For a fraction of that money Ukrainian housewives build anti-drone air defence systems in their garage that protect their country. For that kind of money you could build an apartment block to ease the housing shortage. You could invest in electricity resilience and build mini nuclear power plants or a small wind farm. Soviet capi…

After a decade of negative interest, there is still a lot of excess capital looking for high-risk-high-gain investments. Perceived future economic value is unfortunately not in the stuff we know and understand to be useful, essential. Use value != sales value; hype sells. Ps. not too sure how far $17M gets you toward mini nuclear power plants, but I catch your drift.

Oklo’s Aurora was budgeted at around $10 million to build, with about $3 million/year to operate

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

#422

Post by theappsecguy »

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.

I would urge you to take a look at the founding team here, I doubt that they vibe coded this tool.

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

#423

Post by rowanG077 »

Eufrat wrote: post #154
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…

Money is not given to good ideas (though, it doesn’t hurt). Money is given to friends . If you look at how VC (or really any network) funding circulates, it’s just people who are allowed to enter that circle and money just flows between them constantly. On one hand, you have trusted people who you are willing to give money, on the other hand, this inherently creates a clique. It reminds me how the Bohemian Club’s slo…

I don't think describing them as friends is entirely correct. People give money to people they trust. And friends often are in that subset of people. But that's not a strict requirement.

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

#424

Post by conartist6 »

tiffanyh wrote: post #42

A lot of people seem confused about how they raised the money, but it’s actually a pretty easy VC pitch. - It’s from one of GitHub’s cofounders. - GitHub had a $7.5B exit. - And the story is: AI is completely changing how software gets built, with plenty of proof points already showing up in the billions in revenue being made from things like Claude Code, Cusor, Codex, etc. So the pitch is basically: back the team th…

I think I have just as good a shot at building what comes after git as their team does, and perhaps quite a lot better.

I'm not famous though, I'm just a good engineer who is patient, inquisitive, and determined enough to spend the last five years of my life on nothing but this.

My question is: say the investor believes that some new platform will win out over Github. How do I make the case that it will be mine over a famous person's?

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

#425

Post by ghywertelling »

Eufrat wrote: post #154
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…

Money is not given to good ideas (though, it doesn’t hurt). Money is given to friends . If you look at how VC (or really any network) funding circulates, it’s just people who are allowed to enter that circle and money just flows between them constantly. On one hand, you have trusted people who you are willing to give money, on the other hand, this inherently creates a clique. It reminds me how the Bohemian Club’s slo…

> money just flows between them constantly

This is also true for how HFT guys make money. It's not that they are very good in investments. The Fed injects money constantly from the top which gets distributed or trickle down to such firms. Because in a tight economy which is not akin to gambling, it should be near to impossible to make money so easily.

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

#426

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

debarshri wrote: post #185
Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #136

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. This is the reason why I don't wish for VC investments if I do something preferably. Also I feel like your comment is highly accurate, I feel like this narrative though can sometimes be the only thing that matters, something like a vibes based economy. I don't like this so much because some idea's tec…

I am twice your age so i would assume i have some wisdom here. Flex often dont translate to value. I often say dont look at what others are doing, head down focus and execute. Raising capital is actually the starting point, i would say it is not an achievement. I think anyone can network. You dont have to be sales person, you have the increase your probability to be in the right place at the right time.

Thanks for responding, I had to think properly as to how I may respond so thus the delay but here are my thoughts.

I feel like, my issue which can be a more society based issue is that we are all at the end of the day too busy with ourselves which can be fine, but what this leads to is that even with my extended family, I have seen people treat just a slight but observable way differently to elder cousins, one who make money and who doesn't and I do believe that cousins who might not earn money in the moment already have stress but it piles it on them maybe just a bit more too.

So I think that most of the world just somehow tries to quantify a person with one dimensional quantity sometimes, and this is why we see people whose only metric is to reach that goal and I am starting to feel like, its not the technical rigor or passion which matters sometimes but basically something akin to influencer-style marketing (Cluely has basically become a skit channel which has hundreds of millions of dollars by a16z I think)

And I feel like what this influencer-style thing is leading to is that our society, as a whole and people who build things, are jumping on the latest trends even when not understanding them (Claw-code was essentially the peak point of this-all) and we are basically adopting all the things wrong with the influencer-style culture and things are getting even more alienated from reality.

Our Industry/World-in-general is having grift and I am not saying it never had grift but I am witnessing something similar to algorithmic form of rage-baits being created by some people for them to not be left behind and we as a society, are now lacking the ability to have discourse with nuance in many-times/places.

> you have the increase your probability to be in the right place at the right time.

I completely agree with you but I do sometimes wonder if I am on Hackernews or if it is the right place. I mean, I am here first and foremost because I like talking here but from that viewpoint you mention, I have sometimes wondered if I should use twitter but I refuse to use it pretty much for most things simply because I feel like I would be yet another part of this cycle of rage-bait and being sucked into it and I am not sure if it would be well worth it. I am not sure if twitter etc. are worth it and I feel like even with things like Youtube etc., in both of these it becomes a very number game with things like followers etc.

Atleast within Hackernews, you don't have the concept of followers, so at one hand it is great but on the other, I question from that perspective if HN is the right place and where do you find people for businesses. Linkedin perhaps?

So in essence, I think I would say that I am unsure about the probabilities and what definition of right means. I would love it if you can talk more about it and thanks for commenting that comment, I appreciate it and I wish you to have a nice day!

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

#427

Post by esafak »

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 am actively looking for a replacement for GitHub and would prefer something that is not based on git.

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

#428

Post by hrimfaxi »

user34283 wrote: post #239
DonThomasitos wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

„Claude, merge these branches and resolve conflicts. Ask me if unclear.“ 16M$ VC money saved.

So far I have not let AI work with git, because I preferred handling version control myself. Does it work well for resolving merge conflicts in your experience?

In my experience, yes. It has done a great job of choosing which changes should be integrated based on context in the repo, too.

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

#430

Post by DrScientist »

conartist6 wrote: post #367
DrScientist wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

LLMs are major generators of pollution: digital pollution. I wish the companies understood the tremendous cost to society of polluting our well of knowledge. But no, as your mention it is free for them to pollute, so they do liberally

Clearly LLMs are tools which can be used for good or ill. The supplier of raw chemicals to the paint factory isn't really responsible for the river pollution.

However you are right to point out there is a problem. Typically societies ( via governments ) try and fix by appropriately pricing the behaviours via regulation/laws ( fines or prison for the people doing it ).

However making regulation/laws is hard. What's your proposal to fix the problem you've identified?

Post reply on HN